Supreme Court Won't Hear Case on Teaching Evolution

Fox News & Associated Press ^ | 07 January 2002 | AP Staff

[PatrickHenry]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court declined Monday to be drawn into a debate over the teaching of evolution in America's public schools.

The refusal is a victory for schools that require teachers to instruct on the subject even if the teacher disagrees with the scientific theory.

[medved]

Arp's theory has a problem with the Lyman-Alpha Forest, which consistently indicates that more redshifted quasars have more light-absorbing hydrogen clouds in front of them, even if they superficially appear to be "next to" less redshifted objects in front of them.

Arp has shown galaxies and quasars which are positively connected together and are part and parcel of the same thing, and the quasars have the characteristic high redshift and the galaxies do not.

[editor-surveyor]

" Neither would random forces create anything as complex as a human being or even a fly which is millions of times more complex than a 747."

We know from empirical data, the 2nd law of thermo, and pure logic, that random, undirected application of energy cannot produce order, or even an increase in order in existing orderly arrays, or to put it another way, energy cannot produce information. - Pascal, and Bernouli have given us the tools that prove mathematically, that the evil, racist/eugenicist conjectures of Darwin are impossible.

The software, and algorithms used by the SETI project are based upon this undeniable truth. - Don't let these Donkeys try to call themselves "scientists."

[ThinkPlease]

Arp's theory has a problem with the Lyman-Alpha Forest , which consistently indicates that more redshifted quasars have more light-absorbing hydrogen clouds in front of them, even if they superficially appear to be "next to" less redshifted objects in front of them.

Not that I'm defending a dead horse, but I think Narlikar proposed that the H_alpha forest was ejecta from the same jet that ejected the quasar. I don't know that anyone has bothered to seriously examine the claims, as the whole theory is pretty much dead at this point anyway, for other reasons.

[JasonC]

Schools can decide what they want to teach, and it is not like they hurt the guy or even fired him. I don't see the beef, really. Obviously, anybody who wants to teach his views has to convince not only himself, but the parents, other teachers, school boards, etc. No, debating children is not an adequate substitute for convincing their parents (who have the final say in how their kids should be taught). In which there is not the least "persecution".

[Nebullis]

How many do you suppose he wants?

We know beforehand that he won't accept any.

His statement alone, places him squarely in the gore3000 camp. He wasn't dismissed soon enough. He shouldn't be teaching any science.

[Nebullis]

The people who know something about genomics knew that he was referring to the fact that the human genome is a barely functional piece of crap that would be an egregious failure if it had been designed by human engineers.

As I'm sitting here typing, I would never conclude that the human genome is a barely functional piece of crap. Rather, Ventner is intimately aware of the complexity of the human genome and all that goes with it. In his own famous words: "We don't know sh!t about biology."

[xzins]

I don't think the creation-evolution issue has anything to do with the court's decision. It has to do with whether or not a school board can require the teaching of certain subjects. The court says "yes."

Presumably, a board could also require the teaching of "The Bible as Literature" if it felt like it.

[VadeRetro]

Arp has shown galaxies and quasars which are positively connected together and are part and parcel of the same thing, and the quasars have the characteristic high redshift and the galaxies do not.

Here you have simpy restated Arp's original thesis, unmodified and without plugging any of the holes that sank it.

[nimdoc]

that random, undirected application of energy cannot produce order, or even an increase in order in existing orderly arrays

Evolution does not hold that random change produces information. Rather, it is random change combined with selection that produces information.

[VadeRetro]

We know from empirical data, the 2nd law of thermo, and pure logic, that random, undirected application of energy cannot produce order, or even an increase in order in existing orderly arrays, or to put it another way, energy cannot produce information.

I posted this earlier to someone else, but since you haven't addressed it I'll go into more detail. The universe revealled by the Cosmic Background Radiation (perhaps 300k years after the Big Bang) shows an almost perfectly uniform gas of mostly hydrogen, some helium, and a little lithium. The information content of that universe was extremely low, although its potential energy content was very high.

The universe we see now came out of that one from the simple operation of gravity, nuclear chemistry, and ordinary chemistry--the winding down of the universe by increasing its entropy. There was no violation of the second law, which strictly interpreted says nothing about information.

Gas collapsed to stars and galaxies. Nucleosynthesis happened in stars. Supernovae blew heavy elements out into the interstellar medium. Some of those heavy elements were re-condensed into second and third-generation solar systems like ours.

There's all kinds of information out there now. This has been paid for by the simple winding down of the universe's useable energy content. The earth in particular has been getting a free energy source from the sun's running down.

But do you need some kind of "organizing principle?" Indeed you do! There are at least four: the strong force, the weak force, electromagnetism, and gravity.

[js1138]

Yippie! An old-fashioned creation vs evolution thread!

Does this mean we're recovering from 911? Not that I want to stop pounding sand monkeys, but life does go on.

[js1138]

Pascal, and Bernouli have given us the tools that prove mathematically, that the evil, racist/eugenicist conjectures of Darwin are impossible.

If you take the individual pieces of any event, calculate the odds of each piece happening and multiply the odds, you can make anything stastically impossible.

A sane person, observing that something has indeed happened, would question the analysis that "proves" it couldn't have happened.

Your "proofs" are little more than updated versions of Zeno's paradoxes

[PatrickHenry]

I think the deleted post (#154) was my comment to you. Things sure are getting strange around here.

[longshadow]

Can you spare a few buckets?

I'm afraid G3K has drained me of all available slime. People like him sense it's power, and seek out the slime, but now I deny it to him and others like him. After being deslimed, a experienced a profound feeling of emptiness. Luckily, I was able to properly interpret this: loss of essense. Ever since, I have restricted myself to drinking only rainwater and grain alcohol, in order to protect my precious bodily slime.

[with apologies to Gen. Buck Turgison, from "Dr. Strangelove"]

[Dimensio]

"We know from empirical data, the 2nd law of thermo, and pure logic, that random, undirected application of energy cannot produce order, or even an increase in order in existing orderly arrays, or to put it another way, energy cannot produce information."

[snip explanation]

The universe we see now came out of that one from the simple operation of gravity, nuclear chemistry, and ordinary chemistry--the winding down of the universe by increasing its entropy. There was no violation of the second law, which strictly interpreted says nothing about information.

Except that the energy expended in this increase in entropy is not "directed" energy. Now, I don't quite know what is meant by "directed" and the real Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't actually have any qualifiers on whether or not this energy is "directed" but I've learned that accuracy in the application of scientific theories is not really important when it comes to "disproving" evolution (even though, in this case, the formation of the universe is not at all a part of evolution).

[medved]

If you take the individual pieces of any event, calculate the odds of each piece happening and multiply the odds, you can make anything stastically impossible.

A sane person, observing that something has indeed happened, would question the analysis that "proves" it couldn't have happened.

Your "proofs" are little more than updated versions of Zeno's paradoxes...

That fails to deal with the most major point which I employ in arguing against evolution on probabilistic grounds. Using the case of the coelurosaur bird-wannabe trying to obtain the dozen or so specialized features he'll need as an example:

In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

In the case of flying birds, the list of required features includes wings, a specialized tail, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through heart and lungs, flight feathers, specialized balance parameters etc. etc.

The same basic argument applies for every new kind of creature (new kinds of organs, new basic plan or adaptation for life etc.) which has ever arisen on the planet. How do you answer that?

[tortoise]

As I'm sitting here typing, I would never conclude that the human genome is a barely functional piece of crap. Rather, Ventner is intimately aware of the complexity of the human genome and all that goes with it.

Okay, a "piece of crap" may be a bit strong, but the genomes of higher order animals are very dirty and even at our primitive level of genomics capability it is becoming clear that some of our genes are only a poor fit for our species. One doesn't have to think very hard to think of body parts and organs which deliver unnecessarily substandard performance. In some cases we know they are substandard because we can identify superior variations in other critters. Oh well. I'm not a genome guy, but I play one on TV.

[PatrickHenry]

Studies in Abuse
to Stultis
However, I am not surprised to see you blatantly lie. All the evolutionists seem to be quite adept at it.
112 posted on 1/7/02 7:23 PM Pacific by gore3000

to Stultis
I am not sure why you folk bother to tell such lies - guess like with Clinton, lying is just part of your natures.
114 posted on 1/7/02 7:28 PM Pacific by gore3000

To: editor-surveyor
The answer is that one cannot allow lies to go without response. I am not validating them, I am challenging them with the truth. Their insults and subterfuges prove them wrong better than I can.
132 posted on 1/7/02 8:29 PM Pacific by gore3000

To: longshadow
It only took one response from an evolutionist to insult me. I will defend myself. Now - as for the meat of my statement - that man has been proven not to descend from monkeys and that it is a blatant lie to insult me for saying it - PROVE ME WRONG instead of sliming me.
134 posted on 1/7/02 8:39 PM Pacific by gore3000

To: Doctor Stochastic
Clearly, you are not only an atheist, but also a Clintonite.
137 posted on 1/7/02 8:50 PM Pacific by gore3000

To: longshadow
Evolutionists made that assertion a hundred years ago ["How many times do we have to remind you that the burden of proof lies on he who makes the assertion?"]. If there is proof of it yet, give it. If not, you are a liar. Always when presented with facts, you seek to avoid giving proof. Well, you call your garbage theory science, let's see the proof instead of insults and sophistry. Time to put up or shut up with your insults. You and your friend insulted me for my statement. Give the proof that you are not an abominable, despicable slimer attacking people for telling the truth.
140 posted on 1/7/02 9:01 PM Pacific by gore3000

Comment #154 Removed by Moderator
[Believed to be a post by PatrickHenry. After all, how much "abuse" can we handle around here?]

[Nebullis]

Evolution does not hold that random change produces information. Rather, it is random change combined with selection that produces information.

Don't you think random change produces information? It also produces noise. Selection insures that the information to noise ratio is kept to a minimum. But it is indeed the random changes (of course, in the context of biology is not truly random) which produce the variation we see in evolution.

[VadeRetro]

Except that the energy expended in this increase in entropy is not "directed" energy.

Depends on what you mean. Elsewhere I've cited the basic forces of physics as providing the necessary direction.

Now, I don't quite know what is meant by "directed" . . .

Your word. What are you saying?

. . . and the real Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't actually have any qualifiers on whether or not this energy is "directed"

Which is what I'm saying.

. . . but I've learned that accuracy in the application of scientific theories is not really important when it comes to "disproving" evolution (even though, in this case, the formation of the universe is not at all a part of evolution).

I've noticed that, too. No argument is spared against evolution.

My point is that "spontaneous" increases in the information of a system can happen, have happened, and are not forbidden. They do have an energy cost, but that doesn't have to be a big deal. The universe is full of energy available to do work, even after fifteen billion years of making entropy.