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 Wing Professor]

There is no reason to believe human life is sacred without God. No reason to believe that I should not rape, without God, no reason to believe that killing is evil without God

Odd, then, that there is no particular correlation in the US between the rates of rape and murder and the rate of religious observance. And, in fact, we have much higher rates of both crimes than many other countries where a mcuh smaller fraction of people believe in God.

[crail]

I don't believe there is an evolution industry, just that currently, the weight of evidence is behind evolution. Tomorrow maybe not. Journals reflect this. When there is more evidence for ID, some journals will start publishing ID, some not. More evidence, more publishing, more journals.

Do you believe that some scientists force fit their hypotheses into a predetermined conclusion
Every scientist is biased. Any scientist who tells you he's not a biased scientist is a biased scientist and a liar. Science works because there are so many biases and using evidence, experiment, digging up fossils, etc. we try to prove other scientists wrong. If the evidence for ID ever passes my critical acceptance value, I'll say "holy crap, you were right!" and you can say "Told you so, dumba**!"

the better to continue the grant pipeline
Do you believe that sometimes defense lawyers take cases where they know the (paying) client is guilty? :) Sometimes science works because of the scientists, sometimes it works in spite of them.

[johnnyb_61820]

"Other scientific theories are possible. NONE have been offered."

However, you miss the problem w/ this statement. If the truth is that God created it the way he wanted it (which is what creationists believe), it cannot be a scientific theory. That means that no matter how much evidence mounts against evolution, we still would have to teach it because of the lack of alternative scientific theories.

I'm all for relegating both ideas (creationism and evolutionism) to the philosophy class and not the science class. But it's silly to give evolution a free ride.

[Right Wing Professor]

Please tell me how long ago Creationism was "discarded" as an origin theory? How was it discarded? And by whom?

It was discarded by near-consensus of the scientific community; I'd say the turning point was approximately 100 years ago. Before 1900 there were still prominent biologists who were against evoluition; since 1900, I can't think of one.

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

Well over that percentage can't do advanced math. Doesn't mean calculus is wrong.

[VadeRetro]

Murray Eden and the Wistar Institute Seminars, 1966.

Not just old. Patently wrong at the time, as biologists of the time were fully capable of pointing out.

The point was made that to account for some evolutionary changes in hemoglobin, one requires about 120 amino acid substitutions...as individual events, as though it is necessary to get one of them done and spread throughout the whole population before you could start processing the next one...[and] if you add up the time for all those sequential steps, it amounts to quite a long time. But the point the biologists want to make is that that isn't really what is going on at all. We don't need 120 changes one after the other. We know perfectly well of 12 changes which exist in the human population at the present time. There are probably many more which we haven't detected, because they have such slight physiological effects...[so] there [may be] 20 different amino acid sequences in human hemoglobins in the world population at present, all being processed simultaneously...Calculations about the length of time of evolutionary steps have to take into account the fact that we are dealing with gene pools, with a great deal of genetic variability, present simultaneously. To deal with them as sequential steps is going to give you estimates that are wildly out." (pp. 95-6)

[VadeRetro]

You have a decidely edgy and nasty tone. Is that intentional, or necessary?

No. It just feels right.

[chronic_loser]

Do the science. Prove us wrong!>>>

I am NOT a young earth ICR kind of person (my view of Gemesis 1-2 is that it is a "framework" not designed at all to teach a chronological order of creation, much less a date.
So, I don't have a horse to bet on in that race.
My contention with your statement, though, is that you make an assumption about human intellect. You assume that "raw" evidence is enough to convince skeptics. This is simply incorrect. ESPECIALLY when it comes to a subject like naturalism vs. special creation, because of the metaphysical implications of where the data will take you. If you are committed to live independently from a Creator, then you WANT the data to point away from evidence for a creator.
As a matter of fact, over the years I have had lots of conversations with some very bright people engaged in the biosciences. I usually can't keep up with them, being limited to a BS in Chemistry. But I know enough to ask questions that they can respond to. We have discussed science, physics, models for life, genetics, math, and what type of evidence truly is out there for what. It has been amazing to watch people who are rational, and dogmatically empirical on almost every other subject shy away with visceral emotions from data that MIGHT challenge their naturalistic assumptions.
If the old book is true, then the mind of man, not just his physical appetites, is fallen. The "nooetic" effects of the fall (noos is gk for "mind") does not make a man believe 2+2=5, but it does cause a man to seek to bend the "raw facts(????)" of math and science into a worldview which justifies his rebellion against his creator. That is what it means when it says that men "suppress the truth" in creation which God has made known. as much as we would like to kid ourselves, we are not honest brokers of info, nor do we have the capacity to be.

[FredZarguna]

If you will read what I actually wrote, you will see that I specifically say that "order" is subjective, and there is no sensible definition of it except in terms of entropy. Despite this, you plunge on ahead with a contrived example that has nothing to do with what creationists are arguing, and this is my point. If you're now arguing that this somehow "proves" that life could exist on earth by an evolution that isn't driven by the availability of constant low-entropy energy inputs from the sun, or geothermal sources--but by specific cases where the number of available microstates increases but something you personally (and erroneously) call "order" also increases--you're simply wrong. Creationists don't misunderstand that aspect of entropy. They choose to draw their system boundaries incorrectly. Period.

Entropy is only disorder in ideal gases? Ridiculous. Again, this is an overstatement of your case. Stick to rigor. When you make outrageous statements like this you give the people who don't understand science more ammunition, not less.

[crail]

You assume that "raw" evidence is enough to convince skeptics.
Often, in science you will never convince the old skeptics. But this is rarely how science moves forward. Grad students and young profs will do something that looks crazy to the old guys, but then they will pull out that critical piece of evidence. Often the skeptics won't change, but science will move on without them because the young guy had the evidence. If ID is to "beat" evolution, whatever that might mean, it needs that critical body of evidence. It's a science game, ID proponents need to play by the rules, not run to the school board.

And as to the reactions of scientists, scientists are people. I hate it when someone beats me in an argument or debate. Even if it's a debate that I know nothing about, like Japanese history. Absolutely hate it. But even if I refuse to accept it, if I get all sulky, if they have the evidence, things moves on. Science is in the corner of the guy with the most evidence... always... even if the scientists don't like it.

[chronic_loser]

The point was made that to account for some evolutionary changes in hemoglobin, one requires about 120 amino acid substitutions...as individual events, as though it is necessary to get one of them done and spread throughout the whole population before you could start processing the next one...[and] if you add up the time for all those sequential steps, it amounts to quite a long time. But the point the biologists want to make is that that isn't really what is going on at all. >>
bullshit. no one posits that the genetic changes requisite for microbe to man have to occur sequentially, not wistar, nor anyone else I know of.
the issue is not the chronology, it is the probability.
you either know that or you should not try to argue about it if you don't

[jpsb]

"Isn't that a little off the deep end?"

Not at all, in the days before the west embraced the Christan God killing for persoanl gain was common. Without a firm belief in a right and wrong as defined by a Creator with power to punish wrong doeers there is no reason not to seek to advance one experience on earth by any possible means. After all you only live once.

If you tell me it is wrong to murder why should I believe you? If the state tells me it is wrong to murder why should I believe them? As long as I don't get caught, no big deal, I have not done anything "wrong" and I will not be held accountable by any God or Supreme being.

[jennyp]

My contention with your statement, though, is that you make an assumption about human intellect. You assume that "raw" evidence is enough to convince skeptics. This is simply incorrect. ESPECIALLY when it comes to a subject like naturalism vs. special creation, because of the metaphysical implications of where the data will take you. If you are committed to live independently from a Creator, then you WANT the data to point away from evidence for a creator.

PMFJI, but I take personal, visceral exception to this kind of statement of my hidden motives for not believing in God. (And believe me, this kind of charge gets thrown about a lot.)

Let me state for the record that I do not disbelieve in God in order to justify my dissolute life of drinking, swearing, & sex orgies with animals. I wouldn't change a thing about my lifestyle if God existed.

 

 

Er, um, wait, lemme rephrase that... :-)

[ColoCdn]

Therein lies the potential for serious mischief. Most organizations are self-correcting (either by firing, bankruptcy, excommunication, or whatever).

But some positions are so popular that they become part of the accepted dogma of the organization.

For instance, many Catholic theologians will tell you that Maryolatry has little, if any, support in the scriptures. But, it has become de rigeur, and any who actively campaign against it run the risk of being labeled apostate.

Thus, the headlong rush into dogmatism. The Reformation/Restoration movement was, in part, a self-correcting response against such unquestioned affiliation.

All such questioners were excommunicated, and damned. Are those scientists who support ID and Creationism doomed to be similarly castigated?

BTW, can you still get Turkish Delight at the convenience stores?!? I haven't had one of those in years!!

[ThinkPlease]

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

Because we've never once seen it happen EVER in the nearly infinite number of atoms that we've observed. Because it is an observable that the laws that are currently in effect in our reality are very nearly the same laws and constants that were in effect as far back in time as we can detect with instruments.

[ThinkPlease]

And until TOE meets the qualifications I set forth, it is just a fairy tale used as propaganda for atheists and for the indoctrinating of our children away from God.

Just so I understand where you are coming from, could you enumerate them here please?

[jpsb]

Let's perform an experiment, convince me that rape and murder is wrong and that I should not commit those crimes without mentioning God.

And to put the shoe on the other foot I will simply tell you that if you do such crimes you will rot in hell for eternity. Do you what is take the risk that maybe I am rigth? Eternity is a long long time.

[chronic_loser]

I hate it when someone beats me in an argument or debate.>>> Ego is ego. I know what you are talking about. But if ego causes people to irrationally cling to positions they KNOW are wrong I once got into a drunken brawl with a guy over whether Alabama had won 3 or 2 national championships in the 60s, simply because of ego.
How much more if "admitting" I am wrong means that I face the fact that I am answerable to a creator I have dedicated my life to shunning?
No one is "objective" when it comes to such matters. And we are asking

[jennyp]

Not at all, in the days before the west embraced the Christan God killing for persoanl gain was common. Without a firm belief in a right and wrong as defined by a Creator with power to punish wrong doeers there is no reason not to seek to advance one experience on earth by any possible means. After all you only live once.

So you're saying that the real world gives us no reason to act morally, so we have to invent this supernatural Authority Figure who'll getcha if you misbehave.

You realize, of course, that your belief is based on exactly the same foundation as that of nihilist postmodernism: There is no objective truth.

If you tell me it is wrong to murder why should I believe you? If the state tells me it is wrong to murder why should I believe them? As long as I don't get caught, no big deal, I have not done anything "wrong" and I will not be held accountable by any God or Supreme being.

What kind of world would it be if your proposed action were accepted as a principle? It would be a terrible world, both for you and for everyone else. Therefore your proposed principle (kill someone whenever you want to) is a bad one.

[ColoCdn]

LOL

[general_re]

Let's perform an experiment, convince me that rape and murder is wrong and that I should not commit those crimes without mentioning God.

If you rape and/or murder someone, I'll take this here two-by-four and inflict extreme torment, pain, and suffering upon you.

Well, wassamatta? That's pretty much the same deal God gives you, isn't it? ;)