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]

Like I said, I rely very little on websites for information. I'm one of those book type nerdettes who likes to learn first hand and not take anyone's word without at least some independent study. But its refreshing to hear that you visit those websites. That's a start for you :)

[BMCDA]

The fact that the billion or so Buddists in the world aren't running around murdering and raping everyone pretty much blows the "Fear of God is required to keep people moral" argument out of the water.

Indeed, that's agood counterexample. Also, I don't know if people who need to "fear God" in order to refrain from running amok can be called moral in the first place.

[Shryke]

Ever been to a canyon? I've personally witnessed the effects of erosion through hundreds of feet of stone. Now, you may claim that the erosion was already there (which you can do for every single piece of evidence ever presented to you -"G-d made that canyon and put a stream at the bottom of it!"), but it is readily apparent that the stream/river cut through that stone. It is also apparent, via a very easy experiment, to determine, roughly, just how long it would take a stream or river to cut through rock. It isn't 4000 years. It isn't NEAR 4000 years.

That, to me, is undeniable first-hand proof. Misinterpreting something that obvious is like claiming gravity is an illusion.

[stremba]

I am still looking for a way, given two organisms that share many similarities, you can determine if they are of the same "kind" or not. I am not looking for any type of "common sense" notion of "kind" here. I am looking for a rigorous definition that is applicable to a majority of organisms. For example, a species is typically defined to be a group of organisms that are capable in the wild of successfully breeding and producing fertile, viable offspring. This definition can be applied to any two sexually reproducing organisms. I am looking for a similarly rigorous definition of "kind." Telling me that dogs and flowers are not the same "kind" is not helpful.

[BMCDA]

How do you know for certain that the half-life of c14 is 5730 years? Yes, my question makes a lot of sense, but your afraid to say that you "assume so".

Well, that can be measured. And no, you don't need 5730 years to do so.

[MEGoody]

Isn't it nice to know you and the ACLU are on the same side?

[jpsb]

"god doesn't exist", strawman, you are trying to put words into my mouth, the quote is

"If God did not exist man would need to invent Him".

That I agree with, which by no means, not even a big stretch, implies in any fashion that I do not believe in His existence.

And since you also agree with the quote, you should be on my side of this argument instead of trying to trap me with clumsy arguments.

[VadeRetro]

Murry Eden is hardly a creationist. Nor was Hoyle (who you ignored), nor Crick (ditto), nor Flew (sigh, again).

Frankly, I didn't read your whole post. Eden and Wistar were a show-stopper. You don't have to eat a whole omelet to know it's got a bad egg.

Hoyle, like Eden, was not a YEC but his bad arguments are borrowed and flaunted by creationists precisely because he used bad models to get bad answers. In fact creationists cite him for two things, both goofy.

• A claim that Archaeopteryx is an authentic but non-avian dinosaur skeleton to which feather impressions have been manually forged. This claim is utterly incompatible with the "Archaeopteryx is just a bird!" mantra but--such is the logic behind creation science--I've seen a few try to have it both ways at once. That is to say, creationism is about having some kind of sounds to come out when you open your mouth to scream at reality.
• The "tornado in a junkyard assembling a 747" metaphor. That's a pretty good argument against complicated things poofing together all at once, which is why evolutionary scenarios make more sense than creationist ones. Hoyle was an astronomer and cosmologist by education who apparently no clue that he was demolishing strawman models of evolution.

Crick liked panspermia. It's almost irrelevant and most people think it just moves the problem to somewhere else. Your depiction of Flew is incoherent and all the other eggs were bad, anyway.

All creationist modeling shows that even God wouldn't make a cell from dirt in one day. Evolutionary models, for sure, involve at a minimum bootstrapping from simpler sub-assemblies, massive parallelism of experiment, and lots of time. Every creationist who comes in with actual mathematical probability calculations or some other such nonsense has no idea what model to attack and what to defend.

[WildTurkey]

Here is a source of several. Including some with half-lives of over a billion years.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page%209

[MEGoody]

"With the exception of human sacrifice, I would suggest that you could find all of these in 19th century America"

And in 21st century America, human sacrifice is thriving in the form of abortion.

[MEGoody]

"I've personally witnessed the effects of erosion through hundreds of feet of stone."

How long did that take? Just curious.

[RightWingNilla]

I'm one of those book type nerdettes who likes to learn first hand and not take anyone's word without at least some independent study.

Thats good to hear. May I suggest then to throw away the Hovind tapes or the Chick comics and get yourself a decent biology textbook if you wish to learn more about evolution.

[stremba]

First of all, for the sake of argument, grant me the assumption that the theories of modern science and the Bible are not contradictory. Now, let's look at the earliest time period following the creation of the universe. If, as assumed above, science and the Bible are not in contradiction, then the Creation event and the big bang are one and the same. According to big bang theory, all of the mass-energy in the current universe was present in the early universe, but the early universe was much smaller. Therefore, the gravitational fields present in the early universe were enormous. General relativity tells us that a large gravitational field causes a slowdown of the passage of time (as observed by an observer in a reference frame where the gravitational field is low.) Therefore, from God's reference frame in the early universe, the Creation, as described in Genesis, took literally six days. From our (low gravity) frame of reference, this same act of creation took 10-15 billion years. I am not saying that I have proven that this is true. I am merely assuming something (the noncontradiction of science and the Bible) and showing that no contradictions arise from that assumption. I am aware that this does not logically constitute proof of anything (if a contradiction had arisen, it would constitute disproof of my assumption) but it is just something that's interesting to consider.

[RightWingNilla]

Also, I don't know if people who need to "fear God" in order to refrain from running amok can be called moral in the first place.

Very true.

[jpsb]

The proof that the world is vastly older then 6,000 years is so overwhelming that to argue the fact is an upsurd waste of time. But just for grins, ice cores, ice cores go back several hundred thousand years, pollen layers, ice, pollen layer ice, etc. Ask them to explain that, hell there are tree rings going back 15 or 20 thousands years, Hell acient Egyptain civilization goes back to 5,000 B.C. or 7,000 years.

Stop beating your head against a wall, it ain't worth it.

[RightWingNilla]

She sounds a lot like "ConservobabeJen."

I guess we should be grateful the thread hasn't filled up with pointless .gif files yet.

[stremba]

I don't know for a fact, but I would believe that at least 68% of the people of Massachusetts are against legalizing gay "marriage." I think at least 68% of people favor laws banning partial birth abortion.

[balrog666]

Americans are almost comically ignorant of science. You can find that disturbing, reprehensible, or whatever; but it's a fact. That 68% don't believe in evolution simply follows a pattern of demonstrable ignorance.

Yes. As I was musing just how one should properly debate a retarded person (and it appears we have some examples here), it occured to me, why would anyone want to?

[BMCDA]

"If God did not exist man would need to invent Him".

Yes, and if you can remeber I also used if.

That I agree with, which by no means, not even a big stretch, implies in any fashion that I do not believe in His existence.

I never said that you do not. I was just refering to a hypothetical scenario in which this god does not exist and you are aware of this fact. If I'm not mistaken Voltaire did just the same.

And since you also agree with the quote, you should be on my side of this argument instead of trying to trap me with clumsy arguments.

Did I really say I agree with his quote?

[Shryke]

Observing erosion through soft materials, such as hardened mud, takes seconds. Observing the same through hard stone - obviously takes many many thousands of years - unless, of course, you have a controlled situation and a microscope. Would you argue that you cannot observe, in a reasonable time, erosion occur through hard stone under those circumstances?