Posted on 11/12/2004 4:54:43 AM PST by fr11
ATLANTA - First, Georgia's education chief tried to take the word "evolution" out of the state's science curriculum. Now a suburban Atlanta county is in federal court over textbook stickers that call evolution "a theory, not a fact." Some here worry that Georgia is making itself look like a bunch of rubes or, worse, discrediting its own students.
"People want to project the image that Georgia is a modern state, that we're in the 21st century. Then something like this happens," said Emory University molecular biologist Carlos Moreno.
The federal lawsuit being heard this week in Atlanta concerns whether the constitutional separation of church and state was violated when suburban Cobb County school officials placed the disclaimer stickers in high school biology texts in 2002. The stickers say evolution should be "critically considered."
Some scientists say they are frustrated the issue is still around nearly 80 years since the Scopes Monkey Trial — the historic case heard in neighboring Tennessee over the teaching of evolution instead of the biblical story of creation.
"We're really busy. We have a lot to do. And here we are, having to go through this 19th century argument over and over again," said Sarah Pallas, who teaches biology and neuroscience at Georgia State University in Atlanta.
Moreno and dozens of other science instructors, along with the county superintendent, argued that the stickers only make the state look backward. And high school teacher Wes McCoy worried the issue could tarnish his students.
"I didn't want college admission counselors thinking less of their science educations, thinking they hadn't been taught evolution or something," McCoy testified.
Moreno recalled how, after graduating from Georgia public schools, he headed north to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (news - web sites), only to find that people were less than kind about his educational roots.
"They felt Southerners were not only less well educated, but less intelligent," Moreno said.
Doughnut shop worker Maria Jordan, 48, said her Atlanta customers were shaking their heads over the latest dispute. "Lord, don't we have more important things to worry about?" she asked. "It's just a flat-out embarrassment."
As for what they are saying elsewhere around the country, she said: "Whatever Georgia's getting up north, we're putting it on ourselves."
Please don't confuse support for the only viable scientific theory of the origin of species with support for John Kerry. I worked hard to elect George Bush. I'll work just as hard to keep anti-scientific origin theories out of public school classrooms.
And the tenth one thinks she still is a man!
30% of them can't count beyond four anyway.
About 99% of them. The non-wacko kind, in other words.
If you are going to accuse others of falsehood, then you need to correct your own falsehoods first.
You said:
Perhaps. Physics may support this. {the Spontaneous Generation of Matter} But no physics anywhere supports the Creationist views that life suddenly "poofed" into existence.
First of all, you are claiming that the first law of thermodynamics 'may' not be valid..you cannot prove that of course, it is just blind faith.
Second, neither creationists nor honest evolutionists claim that creationists believe 'matter' or 'life in the material universe' came into being "poof"...all on its own, as you insinuated.
The creationist claim (I will try to help you also) is that an intelligent God, (Spirit) created both the 'material' universe and life itself.
While the first law of thermodynamics disproves your faith (at least how your FAITH is leaning), it does not disprove the creationists.
You don't have to agree, but get it right if you can.
Keep preaching your faith in the mean time, because that is just what it is.
> you are claiming that the first law of thermodynamics 'may' not be valid..you cannot prove that of course, it is just blind faith.
Do you realize just how silly you sound? "Blind faith" in experimental test results that show a *possibility*? Come back to this discussion when you see me advocating deleting discsussion of the laws of thermodynamics from science books, as you would have doen with evolution.
> neither creationists nor honest evolutionists claim that creationists believe 'matter' or 'life in the material universe' came into being "poof"...all on its own, as you insinuated. The creationist claim (I will try to help you also) is that an intelligent God, (Spirit) created both the 'material' universe and life itself.
Yes... Poofism. God "poofed" everything into being. And you've got *SOOOO* much evidence for that (snicker...).
> While the first law of thermodynamics disproves your faith
No, it does not. The 1LT does not even remotely come close to negating the possibility of evolution. Claims of the laws of thermodynamics making evolution impossible are common Creationist lies. They have been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked, but y'all keep trotting that old canard out anyway. Keep up with the falsehoods, though... they are useful in exposing just how dishonest the Creationist worldview really is.
Poofism! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA!
Good one.
> Poofism! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA!
Wish I could take credit for that, but I can't. Saw it elsewhere on FR. But please, use it whenever possible. It is succinct and to the point, and does away with the false dignity of "Intelligent Design."
Cut and paste shotgun posting is obnoxious.
Try making some actual arguments, please.
Odd. I don't see anything in the article saying that Christians are an "embarassment". It looks more to me like the problem is with people who are ignorant with respect to science attempting to dictate practices in science classrooms.
Groan - who cares what these self important bozos think... If it upsets the AP and the ACLU, I'm all for it.
>>LOL.... What kinda molecular scientist believes in evolution. To get down to the complexities of molecular biology (think of the complex DNA strand, and each biological molecule) with a an incredibly complex group of systems working together in ways we have yet to determine. Better yet, ask Darwin's black box.....
The theory of intelligent design is the only feasible answer. Just goes to show they will let anyone be a "scientist" these days.<<
That pretty much sums up my thoughts on this thing. Many will ask you, after such a diatribe, "why are you afraid of science?" They don't get it. Evolution is, to the remainder of "science" what the Yugo is to German cars. Theyt have very little in common.
The "usual suspects" should be here any minute though. 8^>
Even better translation:
WHO CARES. GET A LIFE.
What does formation of amino acids into a protein have to do with evolution?
>>We cannot go back into time and see how the world was created. But scientific theories make predictions that can be verified. For example, the theory of evolution includes the observation that all life has descended from a common ancestor.<<
Yikes! That is not correct. It is an interpretation based on what is observed, not what is actually observed.
And here lies the root falacy of religious evolutionists.
When a kid takes a lego set and sets off to make toy insects, dogs, firemen and jet planes, they may "appear" to all have a common ancestor since they are all made of legos. But the only things they have in common is that the building material was the same and the designer was the same.
All living things were designed to live withing this particular ecosystem.
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.