ACLU Files Suit in Pa. Over Evolution

FOX News ^

[wkdaysoff]

HARRISBURG, Pa. — The state American Civil Liberties Union (search) plans to file a federal lawsuit Tuesday against a Pennsylvania school district that is requiring students to learn about alternatives to the theory of evolution (search).

The ACLU said its lawsuit will be the first to challenge whether public schools should teach "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by some higher power....

[DAVEY CROCKETT]

Call these guys...

700 lawyers ready to fight ACLU lawsuits
WND ^ | Nov 24, 2004 | staff


Posted on 11/24/2004 2:44:16 AM EST by ETERNAL WARMING


700 lawyers ready to fight ACLU lawsuits Legal group's 'Christmas Project' designed to protect public schools

---

Posted: November 24, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

[WildTurkey]

History of the flat-earth Theory
The long association between Christianity and the flat-earth theory begins in the sixth century when a Greek monk of Alexandria, Cosmas, who had traveled widely in the East, retired to a cloister in Sinai and wrote his Christian Topography. In it he refuted the 'false and heathen' notion that the earth is a sphere, and showed that it is really a rectangular plane arched over by the firmament which separates us from heaven. The inhabited earth, with Jerusalem at its hub, is at the centre of the plane, and it is surrounded by oceans beyond which lies Adam's paradise. The sun revolves round a north polar mountain, circling its peak in summer and its base in winter.

Christian Topography was well received by the Church, whose policy at the time was to eradicate all previous knowledge and establish itself as the sole authority in religion, philosophy and science. The flat-earth theory, hitched on to the geocentric cosmology of Ptolemy, prevailed among clergymen (if not among navigators) until the sixteenth century, when Copernicus called it into question by venturing the idea that the earth is a planet orbiting the sun. He was not very assertive. The preface to his book emphasized that the heliocentric system was merely a hypothesis, and Copernicus avoided controversy with the reviewers by dying on the day it was published.

Copernicus first derived his theory from esoteric studies of the Pythagorean and other ancient traditions. His successor, Galileo, challenged the flat-earth believers to scientific experiments. One of theirs was to shoot a cannonball vertically into the air. When it fell to earth near the cannon they claimed to have proved that the earth was not moving. Galileo explained that the reason why the ball was not left behind by the spinning earth was that it partook of the same motion. The argument went on for years, but heliocentricism was in the air. It won its way against the Inquisition and finally triumphed with the cosmological system of Sir Isaac Newton. The Church found that it could after all live with the round-earth idea, and that references in the Old Testament to the four corners of the earth and the pillars on which it rests might have been intended, not literally, but as figures of speech.

From Eccentric Lives and Peculiar Notions by John Michell (1984) pg. 21-22

[wkdaysoff]

Thanks. Very helpful.

[ColoCdn]

Of course, if I've misinterpreted the intent of crail's response, I apologize.

However, when the original poster asks "For anyone out there that believes in evolution as a fact, could you please explain to me how evolution can get around the second law of thermodynamics?", he/she gets, in reply,

"By teaching people what the second law of thermodynamics is."

This implies that there is a deficiency in the questioners education, hence, my remark that "he/she just isn't educated enough to understand." These types of implications are utilized by the elitist scientific community too many times to mention.

Also, the middle of crail's response; "The second law does not rule out disorder to order transitions, even in closed systems."

True, and the lack of ability to falsify that which is extant is not proof that it doesn't exist.

And finally, when crail says, "People who espouse that evolution is outlawed by the 2nd law are a shining example of the results of a deficit of scientific knowledge of the general population."

To whom do you think that denigrating remark was intended? Bill Clinton? No. The poster to whom crail was responding.

I don't have a problem with people presenting information in support of their particular pet hobby topic, but a little humility would go a long way.

If that's ad hominem, ...peccavi.

[atlaw]

Actually, I find IDC theory - Intelligent Design by Committee - to be more likely than IDD theory - Intelligent Design by Drunk. The frogfish and the aardwolf are prime examples of committee work.

[Dataman]

Sorry about that #122, Rippin. It was meant for the Shryke.

[Shryke]

It is NOT that such structures are too complex to study and to know: it is precisely, however, that biological structures are too complex to evolve naturally from nothing given no direction and no aim -- or even the nebulous "better advantage over competitors" idea.

I am glad you are for scientific advances. What I am trying to point out though, is this: your belief regarding the need for direction, is in fact, a need for a "designer", which is, of course, religion. Based on history, this is a really bad marriage. Divorcing your religious beliefs from science is not blasphemy.

[ColoCdn]

Hey, and a fellow Canuck, as well.
Where are you from?

[Right in Wisconsin]

The point is that evolution, for all its faults (and I grant that there are some) is based on a factual record and can be, in time, proved or disproved.

Creationism has a factual record and can be proved or disproved in time as well. Many things from the bible have been shown to be scientifically true. For example, springs on the bottom of the ocean and that the Earth was not flat. Evolution may not stand the test of time in its current form - theories need not be definitively true, they need only to invite scientific testing and withstand criticism.

By definition, a theory is not proven. If it were, there would be no argument about its falsity. Creationism has been shown to withstand much harsher criticism for a much longer time. Yet, is yet to be proven "definitively" untrue. Evolution, however, has been "definitively" proven to be missing a lot of necessary ingredients. Creationism or Intelligent Design does not. It is based on speculative theory. Like all theories, it attempts to describe reality, but unlike scientific (as opposed to speculative) theory, there is no mechanism for debating the factual truth of its description. That's the key.

You admit that evolution is a speculative theory but yet hold that against ID. Your right, a mechanism for debating the factual truth of its description is necessary, unfortuantely one has yet to prove evolution to be a fact.

[Dataman]

I replied to you in post 101.

You replied, but you didn't answer the question.

I think we've gone far enough with this issue to know that you won't admit your ignorance of history even when it's handed to you on a silver platter. That is the sort of intellectual honesty I've come to expect from dealing with most of you evolution defenders on FR.

[BJungNan]

The state American Civil Liberties Union (search) plans to file a federal lawsuit Tuesday against a Pennsylvania school district that is requiring students to learn about alternatives to the theory of evolution.

Well, there you have it and direct from the ACLU. There is only one way the world could have possibly been created.

The ACLU is quickly going off the deepend. But how stupid are we. We keep supporting them with our tax dollars.

[Right in Wisconsin]

I didn't read any ignorant statement deserving a lawsuit by the ACLU. Perhaps your ignorance needs help from the ACLU.

[Tuxedo]

Taking the most abstract view, I support portions of both theories. Certain aspects of "evolution" cannot be denied. The creation of LIFE is not generally answered by scientists. There are theories as to how this could have come about, and God is certainly one of those theories. Whether or not subsequent evolution of different species to where they are now occurs without Divine Intervention is subject to debate. Both theories can coexist, in my opinion. A scientist can only observe what he sees, and theorize the rest based upon the knowledge at the time. The Bible only vaguely details the Creation, and the actual scientific mechanism is not revealed. Why? Who knows? I think ID can be taught as a view in science class simply because it provides an answer to the holes in evolutionary theory. Is it the right answer? That is a matter of faith, until physical evidence is discovered, which probably won't ever happen. And for many scientists, it is not an acceptable answer because it relies on faith and not physical evidence. So, they continue to search for the Universal Truth. Nothing wrong with that, as it leads us to genetic research and other wonderful discoveries. And those who profess to believe in Creation should also be permitted to do so. It is believed by a huge number of people, and therefore should be taught as an alternative theory to the big bang. It is a question of belief and a personal thing. Just like politics. You can be taught liberalism in college, but it is your choice whether or not to subscribe to that view. Children from atheist families should be exposed to alternative views and given the free will to make an educated choice.

[ColoCdn]

Don't you think there's an "industry of evolution", to some degree, within the scientific community? Sort of like the "industry of global-warming"? It's really hard to get starting grants and starting jobs within the scientific community if you have anti-evolution leanings.

[Shryke]

I think we've gone far enough with this issue to know that you won't admit your ignorance of history even when it's handed to you on a silver platter.

Sigh. Your question regarding my bias, I answered. Give me the post number whereinyou answered my question please.

[Rippin]

"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."

ACLU has been off the deep end for a long time. According to them it should be illegal to utter this to science students in a public school.

[crail]

This implies that there is a deficiency in the questioners education
Sure, but there is. That line of argument is a line from a fundamental misunderstanding of entropy. The fact is, as much as I have an unnatural love of the 2nd law and entropy, someone who doesn't understand it can still be very successful. There is an enormous deficiency in my education of Greek literature. I don't mind people telling me that, it's not mean, it's factually correct. I'll say it myself, ask me any question about Greek literature... the answer is "I don't know, I'm kind of an idiot when it comes to Greek literature. I never even learned Greek." I would never try to tell a scholar of Greek literature that is enterprise is moot because Greece never existed.

To whom do you think that denigrating remark was intended?
Maybe a little humility on my part would be in order, but everyone here who argues ID should have heard that entropy does not rule out evolution, we talk about it all the time. This argument is wrong on so many levels, and trivially so. I therefore, question the intent of someone who brings up this line of argumentation. What is the motive behind bringing up an argument designed to mislead and confuse people who do not understand the 2nd law. I happen to understand the 2nd because I spent several years studying it instead of Greek literature. I take it as my job to educate people about the 2nd. Other people take it as their job to confuse people about the 2nd. Reinforcing misunderstandings about entropy helps no one.

[Right in Wisconsin]

If you find "these Creationists" ignorant, why bother to go into Creationist related stories and posts? Just leave us ignorant, unintellectual and misinformed Creationists alone. I think all of us Creationists agree that we don't need or want your insight and are quite capable of thinking for ourselves. We are quite content with our beliefs and will defend them to our deaths. Go find posts where you don't intentionally jump in to criticize and harass people of a majority-held belief different and intolerable to your dogmatic brainwashing.

[crail]

Don't you think there's an "industry of evolution", to some degree, within the scientific community?

There is supposed to be. It's neccesary for science to work that way. There was an industry of "classical physicists." Count Einstein as one of them. He was never comfortable with what Quantum turned into. The weight of the evidence left Einstein behind. The study of physics shifted seismically when the evidence was there. The same thing happened for "Josephson Junctions." A little grad student with hardly a 2 year old career went up against a luminary of the old guard that said he was wrong. He was right, he had evidence. The scientific world shifted. Superfluids, Superconductors, over and over again the scientific world shifts when evidence becomes overwhelming. Never in science did a group of scientists go to the public school board to push a theory on kids, then wait till those kids grew up into professors. If the evidence is there, publish it, then publish more. When it's enough, the biological world will shift seismically.

[wkdaysoff]

I would be for that. Present both sides! The student will naturally gravitate towards his own predispositions anyways. But at least both theories will be on the table for discussion.

Makes a lot of sense. But then again, I also thought teaching sex education AND abstinence was a good idea...