Posted on 12/14/2004 7:14:55 AM PST by 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....
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Don't know and don't really care. I didn't start the discussion of join dates.
In the past, banned freepers re-joined in groups, and most were promptly re-banned.
It's fun and, oddly enough, encouraging to see that Christians are showing some spine when it comes to the spurious claims to which they have silently acceded in the past 6 decades, or so.
Indeed. I also belong to the 2+2=4 monopoly, the near-spherical earth monopoly, the Newton's Second Law of Motion monopoly, and a few other vicious hegemonic intellectual movements out to enslave young minds.
Wrong. Subtract the evolutionary hoaxes and deliberate lies and there is but one body of evidence but differing conclusions drawn from it. This is basic to the debate, but few evolutionists will admit it which is another indication of intellectual dishonesty.
Pushing a theory into elementary schools, without the evidence backing, is like running straight to third base on a date.
True, which is why evolution shouldn't be forced on youngsters.
You sound like the Dimocrats.
"You're just so stupid you don't understand the truth, or what's good for you."
Please set your responses on a higher plane of discussion. We've got enough budding Dims in the wings without a good FReeper like you adapting their intellectually empty strategies.
For the enlightenment of the lurkers, would you mind doing the usual wave-aways of the usual evidence?
Most scientists don't think the fossil evidence we have is at all out of joint with the theory we have.
Creationists and IDers want to teach religion in science class.
Tell me something Dataman - if you are so worked up about marrying religion and science, why don't you go down the list of allllll the scientific achievements religion has achieved?
The simple fact of the matter is this: religion has only retarded science. Flat Earth. Geocentrism. On and on and on.
The survey, promoted by the Commerce Department as the first comprehensive survey of the U.S. biotech industry, found 1.1 million total employees in the 1,031 responding companies, with 130,000 employees engaged in biotech activities. Those firms reported $50.4 billion in net sales related to biotech in 2001, with an operating income of $9.4 billion.I wonder how many of those scientists are "creation scientists"?
[snip]
The survey also found that biotech-related research and development spending in 2001 amounted to $16.4 billion, about 10 percent of all U.S. industry R&D that year. Biotech R&D was a heavy expense for firms responding — it accounted for more than 33 percent of the respondents' biotech budgets ...
[snip]
More than 66,000 of the firms' 130,000 biotech employees had technical-related jobs, with 55 percent of those technical jobs belonging to scientists.
Source: Survey: U.S. Biotech Industry Poised for Growth. (From 13 November 2003)
What do you mean by evolution..?
The term evolution is a mishmash of concepts...
If you mean a lizard decided to grow feathers.. That didnt happen..
Actually theres a whole range of other things that didnt happen either..
Evolutionary thought is a fairy tale for adults... that takes childlike faith to believe it.. along with good dose of arrogance.. and if humans are not arrogant their nothing..
Same with creationism of all types... except intelligent creationists tell you that up front.. Even "faith" is a requirement to believe it... Even more faith than it takes to get into your car and Beleive you will actually get from point A to point B and back again, unharmed..
Sometimes I stand in awe at the number of fallacies a college professor can cram into a sentence. If you don't understand the difference between fact and supposition, you shouldn't be a college teacher. If you do and pretend you don't, you shouldn't be a college teacher.
I would guess we'll see that again. It's just hilarious to me that they all join up on such similar dates.
You can't prove anything in science. All you can do is propose an idea and test it against the observed data. That's what has been done WRT evolution (as it has with every other scientific theory) and evolution has so far passed the tests.
ACLU=American Communist Looney Underclass
I believe that there is some evolution: people are getting taller, men are getting balder, our environment and hygience allow us to live longer, etc. I don't see transitions between fish and mammels, etc.
Regarding Change. For Creationism - what's to change?? GOD DID IT. That's the essence of the program.
I was challenged to produce one thing about ID that isn't explored by Evolutionists. Right now, there is a battle going on about the molecular biology of evolution -- something previously completely ignored since the science of MB was itself evolving (when I spoke of creationism and science catching up with one another, this is what I was speaking of). Someone earlier mentioned the book by Michael Behe. Let me illustrate based on general ideas from there, for I don't see how the evolution crows can counter this.
Darwinsim in general: the simple evolves to the more complex when it benefits the organism in some manner. Example: eyesight obvious benefits the organism in innumerable ways.
Behe in general: have you ANY idea how complex eyesight is??? How do you POSSIBLY 'evolve' eyesight? Let's see (no pun intended): you need an OPTIC NERVE. It has to be connected to a BRAIN. The brain has to be aware of this optic nerve and understand what its "interfaces" are (I'm a programmer). The optic nerve has to have some sort of eye thing attached to it. You've gotta have a blood supply to mourish this, a RETINA, an opening to the outside of the body that "houses" a container for the retina -- call it an 'eyeball'.
Further 'evolutionary' refinements: muscles to move and rotate the eye (which also keep it from falling out). Pigment to reduce light damage. A cornea to protect it. An eyelid for further protection. Eyelashes for MORE protection. Muscles in the eyelid. An auto-blink reaction. Tears for lubrication. Muscles in the aperture that react automatically to various light levels. Another blood supply for the eyeball. OH - YOU WANT FOCUSING??? How 'bout a new concept - a LENS to focus light onto the retina, which has photo-sensors that chemically react to that light and produce bio-chemical reactions of their own on that optic nerve that are transmitted to the brain so that it can take this information and interpret these strange signals as a brand new concept: AN IMAGE.
Okay. That's enough. Somebody explain to me how these individual pieces of eyesight evolved. I didn't bother with the concept of TWO eyes and stereo vision!
And don't get me started on how sexual reproduction could have possibly 'evolved'... with sufficient proximity of new male and female creatures to actually make use of this evolved concept.
I'll let everybody chew on these concepts for a while.
And if I do? If I give you five, will you publically admit your ignorant bias?
My statements are not about proof, since I am a scientist, but about data that support the theory. And, again, if you're unfamiliar with the data, then I've given you at least one way of discovering some of them.
So are molecular machines species?
Exactly. Or will the goal posts be moved to another corner of the self-enclosed universe?
Ahh, lead with the ad hominem, completely mistranslate the poster's words, and then accuse him of the crime that you commit. Quite a strategy.
Does anyone dispute that our students are falling behind in math and science? That is the point that crail made, and he did so with some measure of grace, in that reasons were provided.
That you want to beat crail up for the way you translated his words is much more DU-like than anything crail has stated.
Sorry, crail, I know you're a grown up and can defend yourself...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.