Posted on 12/14/2004 7:14:55 AM PST by 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....
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
If the Second Law says that, can you explain to me, then, how a snowflake crystallizes from the randomly moving molecules of water vapor?
Don't you think, that in the thousands of years of recordable human history, we’d find at least one reference/description of a particular animal that just doesn’t quite match up with the current description of that animal. Surely, a certain amount of “evolving” has taken place in the last 2,000 years, yes?
We’ve found no hard evidence of any “missing link". Even if you consider homo erectus and all the other various “finds” as viable, then what about the rest of the fossile record? Why aren’t we finding transitory fossils for other species?
I find it laughable when scholars/intellectuals/what-have-you rail against the idea of Creationism and label it as mere fantasy, yet there really is no solid evidence to support the theory of Evolution either!
Both, in my opinion, take a huge amount of FAITH to believe in. Evolution is simply a different type of faith, wrapped up in a “religion” of science.
I can't follow the relevance your statements re: second law of thermodynamics.
Of course it's a theory, never said it wasn't. Nor did I say there were data that "proved" the theory.
Ooh, ooh, let me answer. It predicts the designer would use logical efficient means to build living organisms, employing (for example) similar genetic means to create adaptations to life in the water. We can test it by comparing the genomes of whales, fish and squid. We find that in fact, there is no evidence that similar genetic means were used; whale genomes are closer to horse genomes, ocean fish genomes to mudskipper genomes, and squid genomes to land-dwelling snail genomes. The prediction thus failed, and we must conclude ID is falsified.
I can't believe the audacity of the ACLU and the public school system. By law, it is not illegal to teach creationism. We are just so bullied into hearing one side of this debate, all because "enlightened" people cannot endorse that there may be validity to anything having to do with God.
There is so much evidence against evolution. Visit this website http://www.drdino.com to read all about it.
Concerning the ACLU, we all should wear these t-shirts proudly, http://www.cafepress.com/frog442
I suppose it depends on the meaning of "intelligent".
Roger Hedgecock, while hosting Rush's show recently, cited a federal act that enables the ACLU to be "generously" funded by tax dollars. Anyone get the info on that? These folks in PA could use all the help they can get.
You mean like Archaeopteryx? And Pakicetus? And a few hundred other transitional species?
My 'drunk designer' theory is a clearly superior alternative. Life was put together by an immensely powerful being with a serious drinking problem. It explains not just the complexity and elegance of life, but also all the dumb, absurd stuff too. I want it taught in public schools!
Darwinism {"origin of the species can be explained by random variation and natural selection") is not a mathematical model, that is, it is not a function in the mathematical sense. This being so, a group of numerical measurements cannot be cranked through the theory making a prediction with the theory's output.
That is, "IF 1, 2, 3...n THEN output variable value is the same value as is measured in nature" cannot be said. Therefore Darwinism remains an hypothesis with no evidence attached.
To make observations and say, "look at what Evolution has wrought", "gee, this is really proof of Evolution," "this looks just like Darwinism is true" is indeed theory making, but not scientific theory making in the sense Newton attempted, Maxwell, or Schwinger. The Darwinist's use of the term "scientific theory" is more akin to Emmanuel Kant's or Karl Marx's.
No numbers in, no numbers out. Same as Marx, same as Lenin.
Myself, I find Darwinism hopelessly metaphysical, religious, and based on faith. Darwinism is a creation myth, and nothing else. Darwinism is not materialistic but instead only moony emotionalism. Group think and pseudo knowledge. Don't need no creation myths.
Actually simple combinatorial mathematics makes Darwinism appear extremely unlikely indeed. Apply numerical models to biochemistry and see for yourself. Stick with materialism and leave religion and science separated.
Hey if 80%+ of the population trying believes in some form of divine being, this shouldn't really be that hard a sell job. But the evolutionary track people (i.e., the self-admitted godless "intellectuals" of our society) have so much succeeded in shoving the Darwin theory down everybody's throats over the past 100 years that it is "de facto" in the fields of biology, zoology, anthropology, botany, and more. But it can't work! And they're so blinded that they can't even entertain a moment's thought of considering a critical look at the core belief system that has been erected.
You're right on my friend! I beleive you have accurately assessed the situation. The only thing I would add is they are using the socalist democracies of Europe as a model for this country as they see Europe as a utopia for little socalists. They may be right, but as a beleiver I don't want to live in a country like that. Besides the Muslum radicals won't let them live in their utopia anyway. Merry CHRISTmas!!!!
Aw, c'mon. The ID'ers have a very scientific sounding buzzword, "irreducible complexity". Of course, there are things that in Darwins day that were irreducibly complex that children now play with in their science labs.
Teach ID all you want, just not in science class.
IMHO, it's not even subtle enough to be referred to as the Trojan horse for creationism. You cannot have intelligence with a being possessing said intelligence.
I still have yet to understand why those who believe in creation feel the need to underwrite their faith with a scientific theory. I always thought that's why they called it "faith".
...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?
Excuse me, but evolution has NO evidence to back it up except conjecture. No proof. No transitional species in the fossil record. No evidence even that life started here on earth. There theories about how life started have been proven false, and now they (evolutionists) are saying that life came from some other planet on a rock that hit earth. This gives them a reason to pass over the beggining of life. The cambrian explosion kills the evolution theory so now they are saying the punuated equilibrium is what happened, this amounts to instant mutation from one species to another, also without any proof and actually the study of mutants gives the lie to this theory also. Evolutionists create evidence out of nothing and then have to defend the evidence which sooner or later is proven false. Now before you start to call me a "creationists" know that I do not attend church and haven't since I was a child, I am now 62. BUT I look at evidence and do not believe all the hype. Only real evidence satisfies me and so far there is none for evolution. Whatever happened to cause life it was not "spontaneious combustion" as they once thought. No one knows what it was. Until they prove how life started there is no hope for evolution theory to survive. It will eventually go the way of the DoDo bird.
So, knowing what Man is today, and having fossils from eons ago, but never finding the ever-illusive "missing link" which would have to be somewhere in the middle of the sandwich, makes the evolution theory valid? Why would a theory that perhaps God (The Intelligent Designer) is the "missing link" not be scientifically valid?
It seems to be less scientific to throw out all possibility of an Intelligent Designer, and to stick with the so-far unprovable evolution theory than it would be to include any possibilities. If evolution were provable, the argument/theory would be moot.
Here's why: without "science" to back up what happened during creation, the Intellectuals of our universities have been successfully shouted down the Faithful as nothing more than uneducated religious zealots. For the past 100 years -- basically since the Scopes Trial -- the Creationists have been playing catch-up. And it took probably 60 years before they got over being stunned and brow-beaten into silence. But in the last few decades, science has (oddly enough) advanced sufficiently to assist our case.
It seems that Attorneys have no other way to make an income these (Bush) days.
There is to much competition in Government, not to mention the ambulance chasing arena.
Can someone start a fund for these losers?
When you make ignorant statements like this you leave an opening a mile-wide to be sued by the ACLU and you deserve it.
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.