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....

[Right in Wisconsin]

Whether I have a basic misunderstanding of how science works, or whether something proves or disproves a theory is not relevant. What TOE's need to understand is that in order for their theory to work, the world needs to be as it is. Therefore the first 4 evolutions must occur exactly the precise way needed to create the environment for evolution. I don't need to have a scientific background to hold the belief that God created the universe and all life.

All the scientitic terminology and alleged "proof" and "dispositive evidence" will carry a shadow of doubt as no one can go back in time to see what happened. You can say the same thing about Creationism. Both need a leap of faith to believe in and both are forms of religious belief.

If it makes you feel better to assume your correct no matter what, then have at it. If it makes you feel better to condescend and be intolerant of others, then have at it. It is my experience that evolutionists believe that if it feels good, its right, so I am not surprised by your reaction.

[alancarp]

Thanks for the link. My impression, though, is that it's a highly simplistic view that accounts for absolutely none of the chemical reactions and simply speculates about how one could get from nothing to where we are today.

It also utterly fails to account for the optic nerve element, or such things as why the pieces of an eye -- the retina, the orb itself, the eyelid, the muscle control, the lenses, etc -- all evolved in the same area of the body and how they work together. That is, yes, we may have a light-sensitive 'device' on our body. But how does our brain understand that such a thing exists, much less how on earth to make use of such a thing?

The complexity of eyesight is enormous, and while I understand that the forum afforded by this video doesn't allow for the detail necessary, it doesn't appear that the professor has an answer for that in any case.

Yes, the incremental steps provide advantage to the creatures involved. But how does a retina suddenly burst on the scene? A lens, for cryin' out loud?? One would expect that we'd be born with lenses on our fingernails just as often as they might appear over our newly-evolved eyeballs.

You know, looking at this video link, one would kind of get the understanding that the evolutionary development of an eye function might have been, ummm... directed toward a conclusion?

[Oztrich Boy]

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?

Have you read a Mediaeval Bestiary?

[TheForceOfOne]

I hope its God I really do.

[Amish with an attitude]

Discussing the evolution of an eye or any other complex organ is usless without first determining the origin of the cells of which it consists.

[TheForceOfOne]

Scientific theory and Religion both lay claim to the correct path of the existence of life. Neither can be proved right or wrong. My heart is with Religion.

[Oztrich Boy]

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

But you would have to look deeper than simple dipsomania to explain the inordinate fondness for beetles

[Heartlander]

Evolution has nothing to do with producing a viable living cell where none existed before.

Evolution played no part in producing a ‘viable living cell’? Interesting… It seems OOL researchers have their hands full…

[atlaw]

I'm truly amazed at the patience of the folks arguing from the evolution side of the fence. The pickings from this thread alone (ranging from the staggeringly ignorant to the disturbingly bizarre) could have easily resulted in exasperated and hot-headed replies, yet general courtesy seems to be the order of the day.

But just for the record (verbatim and without commentary), following are some of the creationist gems from this thread that made me, personally, despair for the future of science education:

Whatever happened to cause life it was not "spontaneious combustion" as they once thought.

What do you mean by evolution..? The term evolution is a mishmash of concepts... If you mean a lizard decided to grow feathers.. That didnt happen.. Actually theres a whole range of other things that didnt happen either..

Regarding Change. For Creationism - what's to change?? GOD DID IT. That's the essence of the program.

Darwinsim in general: the simple evolves to the more complex when it benefits the organism in some manner. Example: eyesight obvious benefits the organism in innumerable ways.

Behe in general: have you ANY idea how complex eyesight is??? How do you POSSIBLY 'evolve' eyesight?

What type of evolution happened? There are 6 different kinds and only one has been proven.

68% of this country do not believe in evolution as a creation theory.

How can you test evolution? … I guess you'd have to be a zillion years old to do that.

Why do we want to indoctrinate children away from free-thinking?

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?

Personally, I think the truly fascinating discussion is the mechanism by which God created. Nanotechnology seems a distinct possibility.

As so poignantly put by "alancarp" in post 94: I'll let everybody chew on these concepts for a while.

[Dimensio]

Evolution played no part in producing a ‘viable living cell’?

You might stump me if you could make your dishonest out-of-context quoting less obvious. I said "producing a viable living cell where none existed before".

[Modernman]

Therefore the first 4 evolutions must occur exactly the precise way needed to create the environment for evolution.

Those four processes are not evolution. And, those theories could be completely wrong and that would still not disprove the TOE. Even if aliens or Zeus created the universe and the first lifeform, evolution would still be the mechanism by which all other species came about from that life form.

It is my experience that evolutionists believe that if it feels good, its right, so I am not surprised by your reaction

What is the point of this statement?

[Dimensio]

Even though I've read all of those snippets at various points before in the discussion, I read through your selections all at once, and I believe that I am less intelligent for it. Like you, I weep for our future.

[Dimensio]

Scientific theory and Religion both lay claim to the correct path of the existence of life. Neither can be proved right or wrong. My heart is with Religion.

Which "Religion"? There are more than one, after all, and even ones with many similarities often disagree on certain issues.

[Modernman]

But you would have to look deeper than simple dipsomania to explain the inordinate fondness for beetles

Beetles are God's chosen species. Why else would He create tens of thousands of beetle species?

[Dimensio]

Discussing the evolution of an eye or any other complex organ is usless without first determining the origin of the cells of which it consists.

Why? Is it impossible to discuss how a car is made without first determining exactly how the atomic particles of the metals used in its construction originated?

[Dimensio]

Whether I have a basic misunderstanding of how science works, or whether something proves or disproves a theory is not relevant.

It's not relevant whether your understanding of science is faulty? Your argument is built around your understanding of science. If your understanding is shown to be faulty, then the entire credibility of your argument falls into question.

What TOE's need to understand is that in order for their theory to work, the world needs to be as it is.

What a fascinating tautology. The world is as it is.

Therefore the first 4 evolutions must occur exactly the precise way needed to create the environment for evolution.

No, they don't! If you disagree, then explain how biological evolution fails if our current understanding of stellar formation is falisifed. This should be easy to do if you're right. Show how evolution is falsified if it is determined that the leading abiogenesis hypothesis is proven incorrect. Show how evolution is falsified if the Big Bang is shown to be impossible. Show the evidence for the connections that you are asserting and we won't have a basis for calling you fundamentally ignorant on the matter.

[Heartlander]

I had your entire quote in the post and the OOL researchers will still have their hands full...

[PatrickHenry]

Like you, I weep for our future.

Don't let it get you down. I'm much more optimistic. We have a few hundred thousand scientists (more than ever before in the world's history) upon whom the future of our species depends. It seems depressingly true that the great majority of the population is stone cold ignorant of science, and a few -- so well represented in these theads -- are openly hostile to any manifestation of reason, but it has always been so.

With all that baggage trying to drag us back down into the Dark Ages, we're still making progress. If some school districts here and there get into astrology and creationism, it's tragic for those kids, but such setbacks aren't universal. Others will carry the torch of reason and learning forward.

[Dimensio]

I had your entire quote in the post

Yes, I know. That's what really undermined your credibility; you quoted me fully, then took my quote out of context in order to ask a loaded question while my original words were still available.

the OOL researchers will still have their hands full...

Why? Evolution does not cover the ultimate origin of life. It should not be surprising to hear this, because we have to keep telling it to creationists who are ignorant of the theory of evolution every time the subject is brought up.

[balrog666]

BTW, can you imagine handling snakes with legs?

Some species have vestigal legs and I have handled them.

God is good. And has a sense of humor.

Unfortunately, most fundamentalists don't, either online or in person.