Suit challenges textbook evolution disclaimers

CNN Law Center ^ | November 8, 2004 | Unattributed

[CindyDawg]

How many lawsuits at the same time would have to be filed to bankrupt?

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[MIT-Elephant]

Liberals love to get after Christians on this one...

Let's get the facts straight.

Micro-evolution occurs and is observable. Populations better suited to survival in their environment tend to survive, and this in turn leads to changes in the species. It's sort of like Pavlovian response for an ecosystem.

Macro-evolution - the development of species from earlier species, the growth of primates into humans, and the like - has by no means been observed or proven. Thus, macro-evolution is still theoretical and not fully substantiated.

And being Catholic, I don't even think the ideas of macroevolution and the divine creation of Genesis I/II conflict.

[VadeRetro]

Another one ping!

[VadeRetro]

Anyone who claims that evolution is fact, not theory, is making a leap of faith.

You're making a leap of ignorance. Theories explain observations. Numerous observations point to the common descent of life on Earth. Evolutionary theory explains the how.

Another way of saying it: Evolution is a fact and a theory.

[PatrickHenry]

I donno. We've had so many of these over the past few days. Should I ping the list? You decide.

[VadeRetro]

Macroevolution is the accumulation of microevolution. The same mechanism accounts for both and there is no clear distinction between the two.

[VadeRetro]

Have we had one on this lawsuit? I'm still to busy gloating over the election to throw a lot of time into the usual counter-Luddite action.

[rhetor]

Absolutely. Read "Darwin's Black Box -- the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" by Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University. Also, read the articles critical of Darwinism by mathematician David Berlinski in the archives of "Commentary" magazine. Also, check out the website started in honor of astro-physicist Sir Fred Hoyle www.panspermia.com. It has many links and articles by scientists in all disciplines critical of traditional Darwinism and so-called neo-Darwinism.

[PatrickHenry]

Macroevolution is the accumulation of microevolution. The same mechanism accounts for both and there is no clear distinction between the two.

Oh, how ignorant! Don't you know that the Cosmic Accountant keeps track of all the mutations a species has, and when the limit is reached, it stops the process, saying: "Hold on there, you've gone far enough. One more mutation and you'll go beyond micro-evolution. You might even start to become a new species." Surely you know that all species on earth are now immune to mutations. No more changes. Enough is enough!

[VadeRetro]

I thought it was the Species Rubber-Band Barrier that bounces you back. Anyway, we agree there has to be something or we'd need a new kind of flu shot every year.

[motife]

"Anyone who claims that evolution is fact, not theory, is making a leap of faith."

You could say the same about creationism.

My theory is neither science nor religion will ever, ever fathom this deep, sacred mystery.

Like great art, music, poetry, the numinous itself, "No tongue can soil it."

"There are no words or systems of thought that can encompass boundless life."

[MarkL]

So, let me get this straight...

There are people who have gone to court over a school district placing a sticker on science books that say something along the lines of "The theory of evolution is a theory?"

So they're objecting to calling a theory a theory...

I see "The Chewbacca Defense" style of litigation coming here.

Mark

[PatrickHenry]

Anyway, we agree there has to be something or we'd need a new kind of flu shot every year.

Clearly. I mean, think about it ... if there were no limit to micro-evolution, why we'd probably have several million different species of insects, instead of just a few dozen.

[PatrickHenry]

... but it's far from proven.

It will never be proven. Theories never are. But if you were told that someone was digging up a fossil, and you had an opportunity to bet on whether the fossil fit into the general scheme of chronological evolution, consistent with the common descent of all life, or whether it was wildly anachronistic and unrelated to everything else, which way would you bet?

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution Ping! This list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and maybe other science topics like cosmology.
See the list's description in my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail me to be added or dropped.