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....

[Shryke]

Let me say a few things first. One: I don't attack people personally. Two: I've never said Creationism/ID is definitely untrue. Three: I comepletely agree that you can think for yourself.

However, when you people wish to invade a science class with religion, you should be stopped. Additionally, when you misrepesent what you are talking about, that isn't ignorance, it's willfully evil. Lastly, I don't brainwash anyone. If there is an alternative to Evolution that is SCIENTIFIC IN NATURE, by all means let's take a look at it. Oddly enough, if I were to ask you the same thing regarding Creationism, would you be that flexible?

[Modernman]

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? (It states that everything goes from a state of order to a state of disorder. Not the other way around).

The Earth is not a closed system.

[WildTurkey]

The bible is very clear that the earth is a flat, fixed feature with a domed heaven containing stars that are much smaller than the earth.

[stremba]

So, what observation would convince you that God did not create the earth and all life on it? Since God is omnipotent, you could argue that the Bible is literally true in the face of ANY POSSIBLE observation and that God created the world with the appearance that this was untrue. The idea of Biblical literalism (or any other idea that invokes an omnipotent being) is unfalsifiable, and therefore not scientific.

[stremba]

Exactly what does evolution have to do with how the world was created? There IS only one scientific theory about how the diversity of life arose on earth. That theory is evolution.

[cynicom]

Does that include how matter created itself?

[Dimensio]

...and your problem with children being taught the possiblity of origin alternatives other than Darwinism, be it God's design or that of a crowd of space monkeys stoned on comet dust, is what, exactly?

It
Isn't
Science.

[Right in Wisconsin]

I think it very WISE to have faith and is a very interesting scientific endeavor. The wisdom gleaned from faith is of much more intelletual value than anything gleaned from "campus intellectuals" (puke).

[Dimensio]

Evolution is a theory that hasn't been proven,

No theory in science is ever proven. Comments like yours show that science education is seriously lacking in this country.

It is outrageous that anyone would bring a law suit because it is required that other theories be taught.

If there were another scientific theory on the matter, I wouldn't have a problem.

[Dimensio]

Exacty. What If I want to use my "Civil Liberty" not to believe in evolution?

Go right ahead. There's no law preventing you from being ignorant of science.

Just because they have nothing productive to do, they have decided to tear down the beliefs that this country was founded on.

Actually, this lawsuit is about an attempt to shoe-horn religion (no, not evolution, which is not a "religion" no matter how many dishonest creationists claim that it is) into a science classroom.

[stremba]

No, but then again evolution isn't concerned with anything that happened before the first living organism was formed. It isn't even concerned with where that organism came from. It only seeks to explain what happened once there was a system that could make imperfect copies of itself.

[Dimensio]

He made a factual statement. If you think that the second law of thermodynamics "disproves" evolution, then you do not understand the second law of thermodynamics. That isn't an insult, that's a statement of fact, but apparently you are so arrogant that you believe yourself above such misunderstandings, so you don't need any further information as you have all of the facts already.

[AndyJackson]

I didn't read any ignorant statement deserving a lawsuit by the ACLU.

Well I did. His statement was "Evolution is a total lie scientifically."

The dictionary definition of lie is "A falsehood uttered or acted for the purpose of deception; an intentional violation of truth; an untruth spoken with the intention to deceive." To so accuse scientists of deliberately fabricating what they know to be a falsehood in propounding evidence that supports evolution is slander and a lawsuit by the ACLU is well-deserved.

[wkdaysoff]

He can't help himself. He simply regurgitates everything he's learned in "special" education.

I would tell him this, if you hold a cat by the tail you learn things you cannot learn any other way.

[Right in Wisconsin]

Please tell me how long ago Creationism was "discarded" as an origin theory? How was it discarded? And by whom? 68% of this country do not believe in evolution as a creation theory. So I'm sure you would believe that the data shows evolution is, and hopefully will be, a discarded theory.

[Dimensio]

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.

Asking how evolution "gets around" the second law of thermodynamics implies a deficiency in their understanding of the either the second law of thermodynamics, evolution or both. It's a logical inferrence based upon the question and the fact that it's been asked so many times by people who have shown ignorance regarding the second law.

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

And I can't even understand how this relates to the discussion.

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

And it's true. Anyone who thinks that the second law of thermodynamics poses a problem for evolution is deficient in their scientific knowledge. That doesn't mean that they're necessarily stupid -- they could have a genius-level grasp on mathematics, a gift for musical composition and they could speak seven languages -- but they're still ignorant of basic scientific principles. That doesn't mean that they couldn't understand them if taught, but it's clear from the question that they don't understand them currently.

[Right in Wisconsin]

Which of the 6 theories of evolution has "tons of data"?

[WildTurkey]

And by whom? 68% of this country do not believe in evolution as a creation theory.

Evolution is not a creation theory. Evolution does not address creation, merely the evolution of species.

[Rippin]

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

Then again, "Sex education" and "abstinence" are not competing theories. Nor is one a critique of the other.

[Right in Wisconsin]

I guess you'd have to be a zillion years old to do that.