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

[Doctor Stochastic]

Liquid Anthropic Principle: niches exist to be filled.

[grey_whiskers]

Geez, and they wonder why scientists never get laid... ;-)
Please spread the word (as if anyone cares) I'm taking a couple of days off of FR to have a real life myself--I'm not trying to be rude by any delays in responding.
...oh, and Happy New Year!

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL!

Actually though, I suspect none of we, the Judeo/Christians, would appeal to the Anthropic Principle in any of its categories - because God is the Creator. IOW, the initial conditions regardless of cosmology - physical constants and laws - as well as the beginning itself (space/time) are caused by Him.

The differences in views among us concern the whens and hows He created "all that there is" - e.g. how much natural, how much supernatural.

[Thatcherite]

It's sooooooooooooooooooooo impressive SCIENTIFICALLY that you are appealing to a political popularity contest to SUPPORT your "SCIENTIFIC" stance. Fascinating.

You lie again. Doesn't your religion have something to say about that? I brought up the "Steves" list solely to counter your lie that there is substantial dissent about ToE within science. Every time I mention that list I point out that it is a joke, and the evidence is what counts.

[RadioAstronomer]

IF you don't know that, then I question whether you are in sufficient touch with 'scientific' 'reality' to carry your end of the discussion intelligently or honestly or . . . congruently with objective reality.

Interesting statement. You think I am not in touch with reality?

[PatrickHenry]

You think I am not in touch with reality?

Hee hee.

[attiladhun2]

Scientists from disciplines from genomics to paleontology rely heavily on evolution and support it 100%. If you want ID taught in schools, fine. But under no circumstances may it be taught in science class, since scientists unanimously agree it is NOT science
Name me a single important scientific discovery with evolution as its basis. You can't. And don't give me any drivel about "speciation and genetic research leading to cures for diseases" nonsense. Speciation is not evidence of evolution, but, on the contrary, is evidence of intelligent design. Speciation does not add to a population, but detracts from it. Something is lost when populations can no longer breed and produce viable offspring. That is devolution, not evolution. Frogs only become princes in fairy tales and biology textbooks.

[PatrickHenry]

Name me a single important scientific discovery with evolution as its basis. You can't.

Most certainly, creation "science" is a desolate field, producing nothing but comic books, fraudulent tapes, and websites that are pits of ignorance.

Consider, for example, the biotech industry, which is unquestionably involved with the science of biology:

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.
[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)

I wonder if any of those scientists are "creation scientists"?

[betty boop]

Some scientists - mostly not of the Intelligent Design persuasion and typically physicists or mathematicians - are not satisfied with the Anthropic Principle and offer alternative cosmologies to explain the initial conditions.

Hi A-G! The Anthropic Principle is probably anathema to such scientists for the same reason the Big Bang is: It points to the discomforting idea of a purposeful creator God. I think such thinkers are motivated by the desire to find purely naturalistic explanations, at all costs if need be. (For instance, Hawking's "imaginary time" -- which on second thought doesn't sound much like a "naturalistic" explanation to me.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, A-G, but doesn't Hawking still resist the idea of a beginning in time? And that his theory of imaginary time was developed precisely for the purpose of obviating the problem of a beginning? I'm not all that familiar with Steinhardt; does he operate out of a similar motivation? Ditto Ovrut, a self-proclaimed atheist? With such an ax to grind (i.e., contra the idea of a purposeful creation is what it seems to boil down to, for that would point to a metaphysical source for the physical universe), how is scientific objectivity possible?

You write that I think "...Intelligent Design scientists are always of the 'B' group and are joined by a few, but prestigious, others who don't identify themselves with Intelligent Design arguments." Actually, I really do think of the IDers as belonging to the "A" group, because of the methods they use. They may have an awareness of the "B" group's essential insight; but that is not the focus of their work. In short, unlike the creationists, they focus on the design, not the designer. You don't have to be a theist to work on Intelligent Design; some ID scientists, I'm told, are self-professed atheists who have no interest in "the God problem." But they have eyes, too; and the fact is the universe appears to give evidence of design, of purposiveness (the point of the Anthropic Principle of whatever "strength").

Thanks so much for your excellent post!

[Dimensio]

My apologies. Apparently I mistakenly assumed that you were out to make a point, when instead you were merely babbling on with incoherent, meaningless ramblings. I was under the obviously false impression that when you spoke of Israel and Biblical prophecies, you were attempting to make a point rather than just deliberately posting meaningless drivel.

BTW, are you characters aware of your fiercely religious fervor in behalf of evolution

No, but I am aware of the many creationists who assert such religious fervor in response to our requests that they actually support their bizarre and nonsensical claims with evidence.

[Dimensio]

Speciation is not evidence of evolution, but, on the contrary, is evidence of intelligent design.

I must say that I had not heard this absurd claim before.

Something is lost when populations can no longer breed and produce viable offspring. That is devolution, not evolution.

I do believe that this is one of the more absurd twisting of semantics that I've seen amongst creationist arguments. Imagine, trying to argue that the emergence of two species where previously there had only been one is an overall loss. Still, I see that he's trying to tie it into the intellectually dishonest notion of "devolution", which is a meaningless word with no relevance in biological study.

[general_re]

The Anthropic Principle is probably anathema to such scientists for the same reason the Big Bang is.....

I"m inclined to think that scientists who purposefully set out to exclude even the potential for God are actually quite few in number, albeit rather loud and vociferous in their pronouncements. I should point out, in addition, that suggesting that the universe may not require a God is not the same as suggesting that the universe doesn't have a God.

[Dimensio]

He already explained that. ID can be observed in structures that you know before hand are intelligently designed, such as a chair or a computer.

[general_re]

Perhaps the poster is interested in somewhat less trivial cases ;)

[Dimensio]

Oh, but he is. The same applies to life itself. We "know" that life is intelligently designed, thus we observe ID when observing life.

[general_re]

Ah. How clever, making one's conclusion into a premise like that ;)

Or perhaps not, in which case, one might be tempted to test this design-spotting ability...

[VadeRetro]

Well, my question remains: was the ape helped by humans? If so, then my point remains unchallenged. Man creates, animals don't.

The ape created. He didn't manufacture the paintbrush, but he made the painting.

Again, are all of your points brazen lies?

[Sola Veritas]

"Agreed...but ID has no predictive utility, hence it's not science."

Not entirely correct. What can "evolutionary theory" predict that cannot be also done by a belief in ID?(especially for a theistic evolutionist) I don't have time now to explain. However, if you think about it, you might see what I am saying.

Whatever, ID purponents encompassed a great many. Hard core creationists believe in ID. Theistic Evolutionists do also. It is actually rather vague.

BTW - your definition of science is too narrow and one held on by those that insist on a naturalistic explaination.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The Anthropic Principle was adopted enthusiastically by Soviet Cosmologists. I don't really understand why, but it seems that they didn't want too large a natural universe. This is discussed in some preprints (xxx archive) about history of physics. I don't know which one.

[longshadow]

seemingly funny-at-the-time placemarker