ACLU Files Suit in Pa. Over Evolution

FOX News ^

[Modernman]

How about a simple high school textbook

http://www.classzone.com/larson2000/geometry_demo/common/chapter3/applicl6.htm

[Modernman]

The first four have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. The distinction between 5 and 6 exists only in creatrionists' minds. "Microevolution" is nothing more than the mechanism through which "macroevolution" occurs.

While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer’s expense.

You're either ignorant or a liar if you claim that the TOE in any way deals with the first 4 items on your list.

[Amish with an attitude]

"darned if I'm going to have them taught creation myths"

And somehow you have concluded that baseless evolution myths are better?

[stremba]

1-4 have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. They are separate issues. 5 and 6 are terms made up by creationists to try to save their position in light of their own admission that species are not invariant, ie. they do evolve. There is only one type of evolution, namely the changing of allele frequencies in the gene pool of organisms over time. This is known to occur. This fact is admitted even by creationists. The theory of evolution states that the major (not the only) mechanism of evolution is natural selection and that evolution has produced the wide variety of species seen today. As far as your definitions of 5 and 6 are concerned, please define "kind." If kind means species, then so called "macroevolution" has been prov-en to occur both in the wild and in laboratory experiments. If kind means something else, such as genus or family, then kind refers to an arbitrarily identified classification group without any real biological significance. There is no mechanism that would stop a population of organisms classified in a given genus, for example, from evolving to the point where humans would classify them as another genus, since genera are human defined.

[Right Wing Professor]

And somehow you have concluded that baseless evolution myths are better?

Evolution is no myth. And entropy is not its foe.

[Rudder]

The word, "prove," in your reply indicates a basic misunderstanding of how science works. There are, however, abundant data supporting what you would call type 5. The first four are types of changes in non-living entities and, as such, are beyond the scope of evolution as it is being discussed here. I would argue that these do not represent evolution as described in The Origin of Species.

If you can't accept the data to which I refer as supporting type 5., then there's really no point to further discussion, is there?

[Dimensio]

What did I tell you? Despite her protests that she's never been to that website, her answer is a mirror image of the false definition of evolution provided in "Big Daddy".

[PatrickHenry]

Source: Jack Chick's "Big Daddy". The dummy's textbook.

[Amish with an attitude]

"I can't wait until the ACLU crashes and burns... "

And it can take it's sister organization the NEA with it.

[Dimensio]

RiW isn't the first creationist to use that claim in a dicussion forum. About six months ago, on a different forum, another creationist claimed that I was "ignorant" because I asked him to provide a citaton for an actual science text that made claim of these "six types of evolution". It leads me to believe that Hovind (who many suspect was the ghostwriter of Big Daddy) has made this claim appear in some popular creationist literature somewhere beyond Chick's lie-filled tract.

[ApesForEvolution]

And it can take it's sister organization the NEA with it.

>>>

Perfect.

[Amish with an attitude]

"Evolution is no myth"

The common definition of "myth";

"A usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon."

The shoe fits nicely.

"And entropy is not its foe."

Has the Second law of thermodynamics been revised?

[atlaw]

"Based on Intelligent Design "Theory," would you expect to find wasps in the fossil record before or after ants?"

Before. Because its just plain dumb to crawl when you can fly, so the intelligent designer, being intelligent, clearly created the flying thingies first.

No. Wait. It has to be after. Because the intelligent designer was just practicing with the crawling thingies, trying to get a grip on body design before tackling the flying stuff.

Or maybe this is a trick question.

[Right in Wisconsin]

Actually, evolution does explain in secular terms the origins of life. Our children are taught that a tiny piece of dust exploded in a big bang, random chemicals ended up on earth and mixed with fluid and made goo that was electified somehow and that chemically reacted goo is our great, great ancestor. Is this not a disservice to our children?

In order for evolution to work, the earth has to be zillions of years old, so again, it attempts to explain the origins of the universe, qualifying itself as a religion. No one is lying to you or anyone else.

Intelligent design is a scientific alternative to evolution. To be fair to our children, we can't give them a myopic view of the universe by institutionalizing only one theory that modern day scientists attribute to the origin of life. Intelligent design is published in scientific peer review journals and many prominent scientists will admit that its hard to explain life as being nothing more than a random mix of chemicals. If the chemical balance was off by just a little, or if the Earth was a few hundred feet further from the moon, there would be no life. The Big Bang theory does not provide the opportunity to see the "design" of the universe or its imperatives. That "clockwork precision" of events is science and required for life. As such, it should not be denied to our children or scoffed off because perhaps it may or may not have religious ramifications.

Macro evolution and ID are mutually exclusive concepts.

I'm speaking for myself here, but it is not the Creationists intent on teaching religious philosphy in public schools (although public schools happily require memorizing Islamic writings in 7th grade and no one complains). Creationists have many fine parochial schools to teach religious philosophy.

BTW, the ACLU is looking for a few good defenders.

[RightWingNilla]

In the end, whether science backs you up or not, don't you still believe?

They don't and it terrifies them.

Creationism is for those of weak faith.

[RightWingNilla]

Does "academic freedom" include teaching astrology and alchemy in science class too?

[Dimensio]

Has the Second law of thermodynamics been revised?

Okay, fine. Explain how the second law of thermodynamics stands at odds with the theory of evolution.

[ThinkPlease]

Intelligent design is a scientific alternative to evolution.

Until ID meets the qualifications I laid out earlier, it isn't scientific. It's just a fairy tale used to make lots of money for its proponents on the lecture and publishing circuit.

[Dimensio]

Actually, evolution does explain in secular terms the origins of life. Our children are taught that a tiny piece of dust exploded in a big bang, random chemicals ended up on earth and mixed with fluid and made goo that was electified somehow and that chemically reacted goo is our great, great ancestor.

That is not a remotely accurate description of the theory of evolution, however -- as usual -- you have decided to predicate your argument upon a lie despite the fact that the truth has been made readily available to you.

The theory of evolution says nothing about how the universe came into existence or how the first life forms came into existence. You have been told this more than once in the past, so your continued assertion of it makes you nothing more than a shameless liar. With liars like you representing the side of creationism, why should we believe it?