The Religious Cult of Evolution Fights Back

PostItNews.com ^

[postitnews.com]

HARRISBURG, PA-The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and attorneys with Pepper Hamilton LLP filed a federal lawsuit today on behalf of 11 parents who say that presenting "intelligent design" in public school science classrooms violates their religious liberty by promoting particular religious beliefs to their children under the guise of science education.

"Teaching students about religion's role in world history and culture is proper, but disguising a particular religious belief as science is not," said ACLU of Pennsylvania Legal Director Witold Walczak. "Intelligent design is a Trojan Horse for bringing religious creationism back into public school science classes."

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United Executive Director, added, "Public schools are not Sunday schools, and we must resist any efforts to make them so. There is an evolving attack under way on sound science...Read More

[Sola Veritas]

"See if you can point to a part of that that comes from evolutionary theory."

You need to watch their proganda films for the public, not what the head of the SS believed and propogated amoung his people.

[Dimensio]

If God doesn't exist, then evolution is the best explanation for how life on earth came to be.

Why does the existence or lack thereof of deities relate to this? The evidence points to evolution whether or not a god exists. Now, if you want to argue that the evidence is misleading because a supernatural god entity intervened, then fine, but don't pretend that it's science or that it has a place in science classrooms.

[Dimensio]

Is this because it is such a good explaination? No, it is because it the the best explaination that can be come up with that excludes the requirement for a "creator."

Absolutely no explanation in science includes the requirement for a 'creator'. This is because, thus far, there's been no reason for science to conclude one either because there is no creator, the evidence for this creator remains totally undiscovered or this creator is supernatural and thus outside of the realm of scientific inquiry.

If you're going to attack any one scientific theory for not addressing a 'creator', then you had better be prepared to attack absolutely all of them.

[Dimensio]

If one does not want to call ID a "scientific" theory then they should at least have the sense to realize it is an alternative explanation.

It is an "alternative" explanation. The problem is that ID proponents want to shove it into science classrooms, and it is not science.

If evolutionary theory cannot stand a little competetion from something as inocuous and vague a ID, then it must not be so great a theory.

The problem is that ID proponents are trying to dishonestly raise ID to the level of evolution. Evolution has mountains of data and research backing it up. ID is little more than supposition and argument from incredulity. It isn't science and it certainly does not qualify as 'theory'.

[Sola Veritas]

"ID presupposes that certain biological structures could not have evolved. In science this is called a null hypothesis, and the obvious response is to conduct research towards falsifying that hypothesis."

And atheistic evolutionists presuppose their is no God or supernatural created force. Seems both sides makes assumptions. BTW - ID doesn't "assume" anything. It quite logically (and by probability) concludes that some things could not happen by chance - their is a "design" to life that could indicate intelligence behind it. This is not creationism per se.

[Sola Veritas]

"In reading this thread I can say we have met the real enemy of our Republic."

I'll take it a step farther. They are the enemy of human civilization.

[Dimensio]

The problem is that he doesn't want to believe that it is true, and as such the evidence is irrelevant. Those who have a dogmatic reason to trash evolution will always find a way to pooh-pooh the evidence.

[Dimensio]

Antony Flew still accepts evolution, so I don't see how that relates in any way to this case.

Also note that Flew is a philosopher, not a scientist and his arguments for the acceptence of this 'god' (which he considers to be a 'prime mover' type of entity that does not interfere or even concern itself with human affairs, much less provide an afterlife for humans) strike me as argument from incredulity.

Also, for a "leading atheist", I never heard of him and neither did quite a few other atheists for whom this news was supposed to shatter worldviews.

[Dimensio]

Why are IDers so intent to shoving non-scientific nonsense into science classrooms and dishonestly labelling it a "theory"?

[Sola Veritas]

"Did you know Hitler was a vegetarian? Yep. It's true. Think about it..."

So? He was also insane.

[Texas Songwriter]

"It is the job of science to imagine". Yes, that is true. Scientifically speaking please tell me how love and justice evolved.

[Dimensio]

Faith 1.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

The equivocation fallacy! Too bad I wasn't here earlier or I would have predicted this. Such a common dishonest tactic when creationists claim that evolution and (insert religious myth here) both require "faith".

Nothing has ever been observed to evolve, there has been no scientific experiments done that ever showed evolution could have happened.

Now this is just ignorance. Evolution has been observed, as has evidence of past evolution. The only way that you could come close to being "honest" with this statement is if you are redefining evolution to mean something other than what any biologist means.

No experiments that showed a repeatable nature and so on - the scientific method has failed here.

A "repeatable nature"? What is that supposed to mean?

[Sola Veritas]

"Why are IDers so intent to shoving non-scientific nonsense into science classrooms and dishonestly labelling it a "theory"?"

I think you are way too hung up on semantics. However, if it would make you feel better, call ID an alternative explanation.

BTW - I am not major proponent of "pushing" ID. I just don't understand why it scares some people so much. It is a relatively inocuous and vague concept. If evolutionary theory is so logically compelling, then it shouldn't be threatened by such a minor competitor.

[Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...]

Ha! If evolution was scientifically provable as being in doubt, there would be 10 papers published everyday attacking it. Any scientist who could disprove evolution would win a nobel tomorrow, and secure their place in history alongside einstein and edison.

And you honestly believe this? Aside from the laughable assertion that one must first disprove something that was never proved in the first place, my guess is that it would only be natural that those who have a vested stake in maintaining the theory would fight absolutely tooth and nail to make sure that any and all contrarian points of view are summarily squelched as quickly and completely as possible. All one has to do is look at the 'talking past each other posts' here to see that that is the case.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Evolutionary theory had no effect on the production of atomic power.

Not directly, but the exact same physical principles used to produce atomic power lead to the conclusion that the Earth is about 4,500,000,000 years old. Creationists deny physics as well as geology and biology.

[Dimensio]

Let me see, once upon a time all the mass of the universe was highly highly compressed in this very tiny dense piece of mass and one day it exploded in a big bang

What the hell does this have to do with the theory of evolution?

and all the bits and pieces flew out and billions of years later, soups began to form on some of those chunks and things in the soups gradually changed and formed objects and miraculously some of the objects in those soups became alive

Again, not even remotely connected to the theory of evolution.

No wonder you don't accept evolution. You haven't the slightest idea what it says, and yet you feel fully qualified to trash it. You have the same credibility as someone who trashes Christianity when it's clear that they've never even read the Bible.

[Dimensio]

Actually, if the rule you mean is Godwin's Law, it doesn't say that the first person to bring up nazis loses, it just says that as any discussion on the internet goes on, the probability of nazis/hitler being brought up tends sharply towards a certainty.

Read up on the history and analysis of the Law. It isn't a universal indicator, but it is usually a good indicator of when a discussion has gone on too long and a "loser" has resorted to it in desperation. I would say that in this case, the reference to Nazism is clearly out of place -- it's a common retreat for creationists who have no valid arguments and because all creationist arguments are based upon misunderstandings or outright lies, the appeal to it often occurs quickly.

[Shryke]

the EVOTARDS are coming!!!

LOL, that was funny. Hope you don't mind us using a smiliar moniker for you, ok? Creatard?

[RadioAstronomer]

I guess these atheist poster

Who were the posters who called themselves atheists?