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....

[jpsb]

"The fact is, we DO act morally"

no we don't or more correctly no we didn't. If you look at ancient civilizations that did not embrace a God as a creator, you will find terrible moral behavior. Murder, slavery, abuse of women, human sacrifice, poligamy, accumulation of great,wealth, poverty, starvation, etc were all very common and accepted norms of behavior.

[Right in Wisconsin]

And Genesis falsifies evolution. Doesn't surprise me a bit that you believe that an alien, let alone a deliquent one, created the universe. That theory is getting popular these days....

[general_re]

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

What? You believed it when that other guy wrote that book!

[Dimensio]

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

Given that you were clearly misreading the post from where you deriver "14-16 billion" (that was given as the estimated age of the universe, not the earth), I'm hesitant to trust your claim that others have given ages of 50 billion or 2 billion.

The best estimate for the current age of the earth is 4.55 billion years. The best estimage for the age of the universe is 15 billion years. As such, if the Big Bang were falsified and we discovered that the 15 billion year age for the universe were false, it would not necessarily falsify evolution, so long as it was not established that the universe could be no older than four billion years (and that itself wouldn't necessarily falsify evolution). As such, the Big Bang theory clearly is not required for evolution to be true, all that is required is that the universe be old enough for life on earth to have existed for a sufficient amount of time. That is not predicated on any specific theory; falsifying the Big Bang would not necessarily demonstrate that the universe is less than 15 billion years old.

[ThinkPlease]

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.

It's really simple, so I'll use small words. We have PLENTY of empirical evidence. Instruments looking out in all directions have made direct observations of dozens of spectral lines for hundreds of thousands of objects at ages reaching back to a few hundred million years after the birth of the universe. Those observations show that the physical constants of the universe are not more that a few percent different than they are today. Given those results, it is more than reasonable to agree that any elements created back then behaved the same back then as they do now. Again, realize that all of the dating mechanisms overlap and correlate. It's not like we are depending on one element here, each object is analyzed with a range of elements, to reduce error or an anomalous reading from one element.

We've done all we can to remove error from the picture, as you can see. These dates are not arrived at lightly, like you seem to think they are. Probability has no dog in this hunt, as it has all been removed by the correlative date samples. Why don't you come back when you understand the subject matter better?

[PatrickHenry]

"Showcase" placemarker.

[Dimensio]

Doesn't surprise me a bit that you believe that an alien, let alone a deliquent one, created the universe.

Do you lack reading comprehension skills, or are you just incredibly dishonest? He did not say that he personally believes that an alien created the universe, he simply tossed it out as a possibility for how evolution could be true even if the big bang were not.

[Dimensio]

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

What are the other theories? Be specific.

[Right in Wisconsin]

Your post reminded me of a zoologist watching a bunch of animals through binoculars and talking into a microphone attached to an old tape recorder. It made me smile. Thanks.

[ThinkPlease]

Not going to wait around for 500, have some writing to do, placemarker.

[Right in Wisconsin]

You avoided the question, please answer. I'm quite curious.

[jpsb]

Golden rule? That kinda sounds like a belief in a higher authority to me. But I am a scientist so I want proof, proof to me that killing is evil if there is no God. I can gain 1 million dollars by killing once, I am willing to take chance I won't get caught. Prove to me I should not do it without mention of God.

[Right in Wisconsin]

That's going a little too far, to the point of being crude.

[crail]

Murder still happens everywhere, even among Christians.
Slavery still happens, and Christians in America were recently part of propogating it.
Abuse of women still happens, and sometimes, sadly, Christians do it too.
I don't know if human sacrifice still happens, everything I read said it was rare, also if I remember correctly, it happens in the old testament, among God's people.
Poligamy still happens in Utah. :) And they claim they are Christians, I don't know much about it.
Accumulation of great wealth? There are some very rich televangilists.
Poverty and Starvation, check and check. Even in America, and sometimes even Christians turn their back to it.

Anyone can go through history, pick out the bad stuff, blame it on lack of God, and go home. But the bottom line is, the vast majority of people, over the vast majority of time, have acted morally. You don't hear about them because NOT killing and NOT raping is not exceptional.

[Right in Wisconsin]

You ask a stupid question, you get a stupid answer.

[Right in Wisconsin]

hey Radio, we've been through this, it shows you (not me) that the earth and universe is over 6000.

[crail]

You have to understand what science is. Science does not address morality, never has, never will. Questions of morality cannot be formulated in such a way that science can address them. There is no experiment we can perform. Science will never tell you that killing is wrong, and it is wrong to expect that of it. It's like expecting mathematics to prove that killing is wrong. Science will never prove there is no God. It can't, it was never designed to do so. In that sense, you and I are just two guys debating philosophy, I am not a scientist in that debate... or rather my being a scientist is of no consequence. Oh and by the way, prove to me that killing is wrong if there is a God. I mean I kill a guy, I get a million bucks and I go to hell. It's a trade off. Prove it's wrong. God says you do this you get that, maybe it's worth it, who knows. You can't prove it. The bottom line: this is an exercise in futility.

[Dimensio]

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

That's your mechanism? What does he do, personally intervene to make sure that the genetics don't drift to the point of speciation? Is there any way to falsify this claim?

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.

No, but repeating a false claim after you have been informed that it is false and why it is false, without attempting to justify your continued repetition of the claim is a lie. You have been told that there are not "six types" of evolution, yet you continue to argue as though there are even though the very claim is in dispute. You dishonestly assert your position as though it were already established fact.

How life forms came into existence is entirely relevant to me.

Good for you. That does not make them relevant to the theory of evolution.

Perhaps not to your belief in evolution or creation of life.

I'm curious as to the origin of the first life forms, but I also recognize that however they came into existence, it's a seperate matter from the theory of evolution.

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.

Evolution requires "billions" of years to work. "Zillions" is neither an exact or general numeric quantity.

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.

That's your belief. That's fine. Just don't pretend that telling us these things make them true.

You also need to at least make an attempt to understand the claims of evolution before you can credibly criticize them. Telling us that there are "six types of evolution", and insisting that the only way humans and chimpanzees could possibly share a common ancestor is if the universe started with all energy/matter compacted into a singularity that slowly expanded outward does not make it sound like you've even studied science in general, much less the theory of evolution.

So I guess, my angry friend, we again come from two different understandings and will never reconcile our differences.

I don't mind if you believe differently. What I mind is people who beileve differently telling us why we are wrong and basing their arguments on falsehoods.

May I suggest our common ground be that we both are persons of conviction?

You're suggesting that I'm a person of conviction? The jury returned a Not Guilty verdict, and I thought that would be the last of it!

(the final statement was intended as humour, for the impaired)

[ColoCdn]

Yep. Luther was the undergrad who challenged the established orthodoxy and became renowned. Maybe the Catholic church and the scientific establishment have more in common than you think, eh?