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]

Just because you say its not science does not make it so.

Tell me, how does evolution work without the Earth being a zillion of years old? How does an old earth theory work without the Big Bang theory?

[Modernman]

Okay, how would evolution occur without the world being zillions of years old and life not being created by chemical reaction?

The Earth is billions of years old, but Zeus could have started the whole thing, or aliens, or the great pumpkin. It doesn't really matter.

[balrog666]

What is the point of this statement?

She's doin' the "Superior Dance" of the Supremely Ignorant.

Is it ... SANTA SATAN?

[Doctor Stochastic]

I have read somewhere (but I didn't actually verify it) that there is more protoplasm tied up in Coleoptera than in any other order of animals. Anecdotal evidence seems to bear this out.

[PatrickHenry]

Tell me, how does evolution work without the Earth being a zillion of years old? How does an old earth theory work without the Big Bang theory?

There is an interesting point to be found in your question, which you may have overlooked: the theory of evolution is consistent with, and not contradicted by, everything else that science has discovered. That's a powerful point in its favor. Creationism, on the other hand, requires that astronomy, cosmology, geology, nuclear physics, and probably a few other sciences be totally false.

[Right in Wisconsin]

In YOUR humble opinion of ALL the evidence because you are all-knowing of all the evidence ever presented. I bow to your greatness!

[dartuser]

By assuming D(0) = 0.0 ...

[Right in Wisconsin]

Okay, all knowing modernman, tell me how evolution works without the earth being a zillion years old and without the perfect alignment of the earth and stars as a result of a big bang?

[Modernman]

In YOUR humble opinion of ALL the evidence because you are all-knowing of all the evidence ever presented. I bow to your greatness!

If you have any evidence that would disprove the prediction made by the TOE that ants evolved from wasps, please provide it.

[alancarp]

Regarding the video clip: that's what I was really saying -- it's unfair on my part to criticize too much since the forum didn't really permit detail. I grant the point, and my arguments are tempered as a result.

Regarding the "[insert anything here]" thing to fill gaps. You stated this bit well. One of the major problems that creationists have with evolution is precisely that a series of jumps are suggested, with no more evidence than "This is how is could have happened" or "well, we obviously got here somehow, right?".

Now I realize that expecting a fossil record (for instance) to show every single detail of every single new feature or every single species is also asking for a lot. And probably unfairly so. But the devil is indeed in the details, and I believe the details are myriad. Not only in eyesight, but in ALL body systems: digestion, eating, teeth, kidneys, liver, brain, nerves, a heart, walking, limbs, lungs, and another biggie - sexual reproduction (a favorite topic of many on this forumm I'm sure :D). But I'll stick to eyesight.

So one eye is great. Two are better. How 'bout 3 - one in the back of the head? Hadn't developed that yet. Why isn't the eye located in the foot? Or maybe it was, but has now migrated to the head. So we have two eyes - balanced on the head. Hmmmm (I'm ranting a bit) -- did the concept of two eyes develop after eyesight? Guess so, hard to figure that two eyes developed equally and independently. Apparently, this all happened in the ocean as well, since virtually all creatures of any size have some eyesight. Ditto the complex chemical reactions involved to make eyesight even work.

As for randomness - I find it impossible to believe that evolution could be anything but. The ToE relies on MUTATION as its sole means of "improving" a life form. Mutations are not directed. They are not intelligent. They are quite as likely to wipe out a population - more so - as to produce a new feature. Okay, the counter-argument there is likely that millions of species HAVE been wiped out. And that Natural Selection weeds out the useless bits (like the lenses on the fingernails.... oh wait! Maybe my fingernails ARE dried up lens that calcified and hardened!).

All that ranting to say this (I am kinda having fun with it!): I believe the evolutionists are running afoul of things lately because of a general attitude that seems to say "We're right - that's the end of it." I believe that there are stunning levels of details that have to be explained by evolutionary theory, and they simply are not being addressed. There are a whole bunch of people that aren't buying The Party Line any more, and to ignore that fact means that even more questions are going to be asked. Hard ones.

That's probably enough.

[FranApple]

I my daughter's family lives in Dover PA as do I.
My brother-in-law is Bill Buckingham (Dover School Board) I am sick of the ACLU and their attempts to turn America into an extention of their beliefs and it is time to fight the ACLU.
There are some legal groups who have offered to go to court for Dover School District and we must win.
Schools do have the right to teach children that Darwin's Theory is a Theory and that there are other theories.
I don't believe the ACLU knows how many Americans are sick and tired of paying for their trashing of our rights.
FranApple

[Oztrich Boy]

After hundreds of millions of fossils have been cataloged, not ONE solitary inter-species transitional fossil has been found,

Who needs fossils? There are living inter-species transitions between the Herring Gull and Lesser Black-backed Gull

(The Great Karnak says "On the Origin of Species")

[Shryke]

Just because you say its not science does not make it so.

Correct. The definition of science makes it so. Don't rely on me or Creationist websites - please. Take a brief look at the requirements of science. Testability and falsification are requirements.

Tell me, how does evolution work without the Earth being a zillion of years old? How does an old earth theory work without the Big Bang theory?

From what I remember, according to Bing Bang, we are looking at 14-16 billion years? Earth comes into being well after that? Nothing to do with Evolution, however. The only possible agreement I see in the theories is that one gives time enough for the other to occur.

[Modernman]

Okay, all knowing modernman, tell me how evolution works without the earth being a zillion years old and without the perfect alignment of the earth and stars as a result of a big bang?

The universe was created by a delinquent alien intelligence when his parents weren't looking. He created everything in the universe up to the first form of life over the course of billions of years, then he got bored and let evolution do the work over the last several billion years.

Like I said, for the purposes of the TOE, it doesn't matter where the universe and life came from.

[Modernman]

Schools do have the right to teach children that Darwin's Theory is a Theory and that there are other theories.

Name another scientific theory.

[crail]

I believe that I didn't give crail enough of that benefit.

Well if you're around Creation/Evolution debates for a while you learn the language too. While the post "Evolution and the 2nd law are incompatible" sounds like "Evolution and the 2nd law are incompatible," it actually, in the context of a Creo-Evo debate, translates as "Any of you evolutionists up for a beatin'?" Likewise, the correct response: "You don't understand the 2nd!" is roughly translated to "BRING IT THE *!?& ON!" Here you see the creationist broadcasting for some playtime on an evolutionists skull, and the evolutionist accepting the challenge.

You can also see the reverse. It usually goes something like this:
E: Natural Selection explains how life, or reproducible matter if you will, came into being!
Translation: I'm here to go cro-magon on some creationist!
C: What?!? You don't even understand natural selection. Translation: Let's dance, punk.

So while it seems impolite, neither one *really* believes the 2nd outlaws evolution, or that natural selection explains first life. We just say it to push buttons, it's a dance, then we go home.

However, occasionally you'll see the partners not go home. This opens up the possibility that the whole enterprise will degrade into intelligent argumentation and debate. No one likes to see that. Back and forth, back and forth, it can go on for hours and always to a null result! ALWAYS! Really, the only serious part is when we talk about science curriculum in public schools, all else is play.

By the way, from your past posts, it looks like your a creationist. You do know that natural selection explains how they get the caramel in the caramilk, right? If I had more time, that's what I'd tell you! ;)

[WildTurkey]

And how do you know those radio isotopes weren't created at a half-life? How can you be absolutely sure of this?

Perhaps you should study a little about radioactive dating before asking a question that has no bearing on the accuracy of radioactive dating ...

[Oztrich Boy]

Just leave us ignorant, unintellectual and misinformed Creationists alone

I am content to leave ignorant, unintellectual and misinformed Muslims alone, until they attempt to get teaching of their belief enforced.

[Right in Wisconsin]

I've not trashed you for weeks, be honest. I haven't been on this site very much in the last few weeks. But, I won't stoop to your level and call you a liar as I at least give a benefit of a doubt that you were generalizing for the purpose of making a point.

God prevents micro evolution turning into macro evolution. Kind into kind, not kind into differnt kind.

Just because "I was told" something does not mean its truth, nor does my belief in something that you don't believe in make me a liar. Geez, I've been told a lot of things but that doesn't make them true because I've been told. To be certain, my teenage son would relate well to your thinking.

How life forms came into existence is entirely relevant to me. Perhaps not to your belief in evolution or creation of life. But, I'm a young earth Creationist and believe the world is 6000 years old and created by God in six 24 hour periods. Therefore, evolution fails as it requires zillions of years to work. Moreover, I believe we were created in God's image and I don't believe God was a random mix of goo incapable of independent thought.

So I guess, my angry friend, we again come from two different understandings and will never reconcile our differences. What makes sense to me is inconceivable to you and what makes sense to you is inconceivable to me. Neither of us will know in our lifetimes who's right or who's wrong, so we are forced to argue, or find a common ground. May I suggest our common ground be that we both are persons of conviction?

[Right Wing Professor]

Get help.