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....

[Oztrich Boy]

How was it discarded? And by whom? 68% of this country do not believe in evolution as a creation theory

Why limit it to the USA. Make it a world wide poll and you can get that majority up to 80-90% or more.

[Right in Wisconsin]

I'm not lying about anything - saying you know for a fact is lying. Neither one of us knows the truth and to say we do is an out and out lie.

Evolution is not the theory that all life shares a common ancestor. It's a little more than that. It involves an inconceivable time period in order to happen the way claimed, and a lot of assumptions that can never be proven because we just can't go back in time.

[atlaw]

RiW: "God prevents micro evolution turning into macro evolution."

Looks like the Cosmic Clerk has been promoted.

[wkdaysoff]

No I haven't. Is it about Job/ Old Testament & middle ages symbolism?

[RadioAstronomer]

But, I'm a young earth Creationist and believe the world is 6000 years old and created by God in six 24 hour periods.

How do you explain SN1987A showing both the universe and the Earth being far older than 6k years?

[Rudder]

Again, please tell me how your theory of evolution would work without the big bang theory and zillions of years. And not transitional changes, but species changes.

Sorry for appearing condescending.

I think I'm beginning to see your perspective on this.

Without the creation of the universe, we could not have evolution...right? Thus, you say, it is incumbent upon those who profess support for the theory of evolution that we must first explain the creation of the universe (unless, of course it wasn't created but was always...there.)

I think this is your latest position (please correct me if I'm wrong).

You may be in the wrong forum. This one is about the theory of evolution of species.

There are other forums, I'm sure, which speak to the "orgin" of the universe. Such a topic, however, is not part of evolutionary theory.

[Right in Wisconsin]

Scientific proof is not relevant to my faith.

[Modernman]

Scientific proof is not relevant to my faith.

Then why are you bothering arguing with us, considering there is no evidence we could give you that would make you change your mind?

[Right in Wisconsin]

You call things you do not agree with a lie. That's what turns me off about you, harsh language with intolerant rhetoric. I'm not lying about anything, I truly believe these things. So I guess I'm what you consider a creationist wacko who only wants to go back to the Dark Ages! Woe is me!

[Oztrich Boy]

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".

You don't have to have "been to that website" to learn what Big Daddy teaches. There are Dead Trees.

[Rudder]

Who needs fossils? There are living examples...

I was about to bring up mules as a strange example of a "transitional" albeit, short-lived, "species." I think they last for only one generation.

[Right in Wisconsin]

Billions of years, excuse me, I guess I was lying about zillions. Nevertheless, I believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old and that's not enough time for macro evolution.

The Big Bang would have had to occur millions of years ago as well to create the environment necessary for life to form from random mixture of chemicals. Some people believe that God used the Big Bang to create the Earth, but don't believe in evolution. I guess if the shoe fits, wear it.

[Rudder]

Scientific proof is not relevant to my faith.

Geez! I suggested to you quite a few posts back, that if you didn't accept scientifically gathered data, then there was really no further discussion possible.

Well, I guess you finally have come clean.

I leave you with this:

God created evolution.

[FredZarguna]

First, the only sensible definition of order is a relative one defined by high vs. low entropy states. In closed macrosystems, the entropy of the system always increases, so yes, for those systems the 2nd law does rule out disorder-to-order transitions. Second, microstates aren't part of the debate about evolution. Cells, (even cell organelles) are not microstates, so the fact that "ordered" states are accessible from "disordered" states in phase space (in fact, they must be attained) is not at issue. The problem with the Second Law and creationists is that they don't understand it. Please don't add to their ignorance by overstating the case.

[crail]

Both?!? All!!! I hope you were going to allow time for my theory in your classrooms. For it too explains the origin of life.

[Oztrich Boy]

Aristotle's demonstration was so compelling that a spherical Earth was the central assumption of all subsequent philosophers of the Classical era (up to ~300 AD)

Harry was one smart dude!

[HenryLeeII]

ACLU Files Suit in Pa. Over Evolution

Wow! Apparently the ACLU is upset that some humanoids in Pennsylvania have evolved beyond the union thug/thumb buster stage. I guess the evolved humanoids are more difficult to control and manipulate when it comes to election time. Any word if you all will be forced to de-evolve if they win?

[crail]

for those systems the 2nd law does rule out disorder-to-order transitions
Order-disorder is possible, and it gives a better understanding of entropy. For example: if you have a system of elongated hard particles... particles shaped like pencils, and you keep the system at constant energy as you add particles, eventually you'll have enough nail-shaped particles that they will all like up pointing in the same direction. An "all pointing the same way" phase, which is more ordered than the isotropic random phase. Now you close the system, but just before you do, you mix up the particles by stirring, so it's disordered, then wait. In time, the system will re-order itself by orienting the particles into the same direction. It will undergo a disorder-order transition. Since you only have hard core potentials, the reason it undergoes that transition is not energetic, (there is no potential), it is entropic. Entropy is the driving force behind the transition, entropy creates order. The trick is the system can have a higher entropy in the ordered phase as it traded some orientational freedom for much greater positional freedom. Likewise for large and small hard core spheres. In the energetic case, the number of examples of order-disorder transitions grows greatly. Diblock copolymers are my field of study. They prefer to be ordered because they can dissipate potential energy as they order themselves. Dissipating potential almost always increases entropy.

The problem with creationists understanding is that they keep getting told that high entropy means disorder. It means nothing of the sort, except in the case of an ideal gas. It's a rare system where the ideal gas approximation is valid. If one believes that entropy = disorder, then exceptions to the 2nd abound. People will not understand how the 2nd and evolution go together until they understand what entropy is, and what it is not. Dispelling this entropy = disorder myth is, I believe, an important step. You can never teach someone about the 2nd and it's ramifications if they do not understand entropy.

[ColoCdn]

But does it explain the union's bargaining position for the Oompa Loompas, or who is responsible for each individual, handcrafted bubble in the Aero bars?

Yup. Creationist. With a sense of humour. And good natured desire for dialogue, not debate.

[js1138]

Speaking of entropy and disorder, find me a creationist willing to stop using a discredited argument.