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....

[jennyp]

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.

That cuts several ways. For example, do you want to take the risk that Muhammed & several billion Muslims are wrong? An eternity spent in Hell (because you didn't accept Allah's most perfect and reasonable laws of behavior, as dictated to the prophet Muhammed by the angel Gabriel) is a long long time.

[chronic_loser]

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.

Please go read David Hume.
I love responses like this. Here we are, with instruments to measure rates of radioactive decay for less than 100 years, and because we have some degree of regularity of data for that 100 year period, we are ready to state that it is a UNIVERSALLY TRUE STATE that potassium has a half life in the six to eight power.
Sheesh, talk about FAITH!!!
You have NO empirical evidence to assume that this is a constant. NONE. All you have is probability.
And probability sucks when you are making comprehensive statements about the nature of the universe.

[crail]

If you are in an argument with a creationist and he says the 2nd outlaws disorder to order, and you say order is subjective, you'll give him far more ammunition than I ever could.

Despite this, you plunge on ahead with a contrived example that has nothing to do with what creationists are arguing.
It's a toy model for liquid crystals. Liquid crystals aren't contrived! I'm using some right now! And I don't argue that this proves that life could exist on earth by evolution, I argue that the 2nd requires a far more detailed understanding than most creationists will give it. While this is a discussion on Creo-Evo, thermodynamics comes up.

Creationists don't misunderstand that aspect of entropy.
If they belive that entropy and disorder are equivalent, then they do.

Entropy is only disorder in ideal gases?
In energetic systems, entropy has to do with the dissipation of energy. Disorder, if present, is secondary. In systems without potential (like the ideal gas) the only avenue to energy dissipation is to spread out the particles carrying the kinetic energy.

As for the people who don't understand science, if they have no desire to understand science, they can have ammunition. Some people are open to talking about these things. Those that aren't generally choose not to reply.

[ColoCdn]

Hey, just checked your ping list. This must be a fashionable debate. All the finest people are here. (Shameless paraphrase from Braveheart)

Does anyone know of a similar Christian/Creationist ping list?

[jpsb]

"So you're saying that the real world gives us no reason to act morally"

Yup without God, the world becomes an animal kindom jungle, just like it used to be 2000 years ago. Hero's used to be the great man that killed all his enemies, our hero had no choice since he knew they would kill him at the first opportunity. Read up on the great families of Rome, or the powerful of Greece where the Gods themselves warred with one another. Egypt on the other hand did belief in a God, (the wrong one) a living God, and that kept their society much more civil.

I am trying to demonstrate that a world without God will be hell on earth. We very much need God, much more then He needs us.

[crail]

Well science is self correcting too. Lots of scientists get discredited when they start to cling to things dogmatically, if those things later come up agains a lot of evidence to the contrary. The difference between science and Catholicism is that there is no privileged position in science. An undergrad can prove a Nobel prize winner wrong if he has the evidence. Science tends to move in the right direction, towards the correct description of nature, over time. No scientist gets excommunicated, they work in obscurity, with fewer grants, they create their own journals among themselves and publish there. If later they are found to be correct, they are lifted to great heights, if they are not, they continue in obscurity.

[jpsb]

Muslims, Christans and Jews all believe in the same God. So all will meet their maker and be judged.

You are dodging the question.

[crail]

Your kinda saying that I'm in danger of killing someone. Kinda offensive, but I'm a nice guy, so I'll let it slide. Fact is I know lots of athiests (and Christians and Muslims and Jews). None of them has ever killed anyone, and they are all nice people. I really don't think a belief in a god or a lact thereof leads to an increase in killing likelyness.

If you tell me it is wrong to murder why should I believe you?
I didn't need to be told.

[jpsb]

No entirely different deal, you may or may not know that I did it, and you may or may not be able to catch me. God on the other hand will judge me, that is a certainty. No getting into the kingdom of heaven without His knowledge.

[general_re]

Don't worry - I'll always be there, following you, making sure you behave yourself.

[anguish]

did the concept of two eyes develop after eyesight? Guess so, hard to figure that two eyes developed equally and independently.

Otherwise the two eyes would probably not be alike. When you have one eye, or proto-eye, the evolution of another is simple in biological terms.

As for randomness - I find it impossible to believe that evolution could be anything but.

Don't confuse mutation with the theory of evolution. Granted, the latter depend on the former, but they are not synonymous. Directing the evolutionary dance is selective pressures, which can be said to be a 'guided' process.

I believe that there are stunning levels of details that have to be explained by evolutionary theory, and they simply are not being addressed.

I think you're wrong here, depending on what details you are thinking about of course. The details of evolution are being addressed every single day in labs across the world and published in scientific journals frequently. The problem, if it can be called that, is that most of this passes either unknown to the broader public, or completely over our heads. Despite having a reasonably good scientific education, just skimming the abstracts is usually enough (and sometimes too much!) for me :)

[chronic_loser]

"So you're saying that the real world gives us no reason to act morally"

while I take issue with the term "real world," the answer is "yes, but only partly yes."
The fact is, we DO act morally, even if we reject the world view that provides coherence for our morality. We can't help it
Morality isn't software. It is hardwired. We MUST act as moral (and purpose driven, by the way) beings. And morality is simply an absurdity if there is no moral standard bigger than us. That is what Sartre meant when he said "I must live as if there were a God."
A Christian would say this is reflects being "made in the image of God." i.e. you will always object to me pissing in your soup, and not just because you don't like the taste of urine. You sense that it is an attack on your value as a person, which is (again) an absurdity if there is no objective standard which ASSIGNS value to you as a person.

[jpsb]

I didn't need to be told.

You are being intellectually dishonest. Here you are arguing for the creationist to provide proof and I come aliong and ask a simple question and you run away and hide. One more time, why is it wrong to murder for personal gain if there is no God?

[ColoCdn]

The story sort of sounds like Martin Luther's, doesn't it?

[jpsb]

Since this is a serious debate I will take that as a win for JPSB. Thanks for playing.

[crail]

You are being intellectually dishonest.
Am I? Killing is rare. Religion is diverse and missing in many houses. Yet killing remains rare. I believe that this gives me some evidence that people are born with some semblance of knowing that killing is wrong. This is not dishonest.

One more time, why is it wrong to murder for personal gain if there is no God?
Why? Because of the golden rule. You have a god - I have the golden rule. You might disagree with the golden rule, but for me, it's what I belive we are all born with, put into words.

[Right in Wisconsin]

So far tonight, I've heard the Earth was 50 billion, 2 billion and now 14-16 billion. So, EVO's which is it?

I'm not a Creationist website visitor so I rarely get information that way. I prefer to study independently.
That's right, Creation under Genesis does falsify evolution. With the Earth being 6000 years old (and our numbers do not vary), it is impossible that evolution could have happened.

Thanks for the insight.

[Dimensio]

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

Given that the earth is not "zillions" of years old -- as "zillion" is not a number -- there is clearly no conflict there. Moreover, how life ultimately came to exist -- whether it was chemical reactions, a divine agent zap-poofing it into existence, aliens seeding the planet or humans travelling back in time -- has no bearing on whether or not evolution can occur once it is present.

[Dimensio]

I love responses like this. Here we are, with instruments to measure rates of radioactive decay for less than 100 years, and because we have some degree of regularity of data for that 100 year period, we are ready to state that it is a UNIVERSALLY TRUE STATE that potassium has a half life in the six to eight power.

Have you studed half-lifes? You are suggesting that the physical properties of the universe are non-constant. If you're going to assume that, then you can't make any inferences from science whatsoever.

[crail]

The story sort of sounds like Martin Luther's, doesn't it?

That's the spirit! Scientists would love to hear that, because sometimes we're biased, sometimes we do things just for the grants, but we *always* have delusions of grandeur.