I see nothing!
Posted on 12/21/2004 7:59:02 PM PST by 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
(Excerpt) Read more at postitnews.com ...
Nobody cares.
However - a very big however - those few (but powerful) scientists look rather like emperors with no clothes (IMHO) declaring that God doesn't exist in the face of (a) the fact of a beginning, (b) the unreasonable effectiveness of math, and (c) information in biological systems. (I'm certain that betty boop could add to my list.)
Supporters of evolution are quick to decry Young Earth Creationists as casting conservatives in a poor intellectual light. Of a truth, these few (but powerful) scientists cast their own community in a bad intellectual light to a great many voters.
Not really sure what your ambiguous comment means or refers to.
But it appears to me that "nobody" is something you don't begin to have
ANY
scientific handle on in this regard! But it is consistent wih the evolutionists who cobble together micro-hints of evidence and assume that such chaff COVERS EVERYTHING out to the horizon in favor of their biases.
Fascinating psychological phenomenon.
ABSOLUTELY. AND WELL SAID.
Thanks.
Meanwhile, we'll be over there discussing science, Dr. Freud.
One of the unfortunate side effects of the poor state of science education is a general inability to distinguish between a scientist's expert opinion, his educated speculation, and his raw, inexpert opining. A better grounding in science and the scientific method would, I think, enable people to better recognize when certain scientists are wandering outside their particular domain, and judge their statements accordingly.
Perhaps.
But KNOWING-BY-DISSECTION
has it's limits.
Thank you so much for your reply!
#####In truth, these few (but powerful) scientists cast their own community in a bad intellectual light to a great many voters#####
You hit the nail on the head!
This is from memory, so I may not have it exactly right, but there was a religious sect a few years ago that taught that Genesis was an account of the earth being RE-created. It may have been the Herbert W. Armstrong Worldwide Church of God. I can't remember for sure.
Anyway, the belief was that in Genesis where it says the earth was without form and void, a more correct translation would be that it BECAME without form and void. God created the earth billions of years ago and populated it with plants and animals. When Lucifer & his demons rebelled, they were cast down to earth and the resulting battle between God's angels and Lucifer's demons devastated the planet and much of the solar system. God then rebuilt things in six days as reported in Genesis, and created man. He repopulated the earth with many of the same animals as before, but not all of them. He didn't recreate dinosaurs, for example. As for what God was doing all those billions of years, well, He's outside of time so to Him those billions of years were nothing.
Anyway, that's a somewhat obscure Christian teaching among some minor denominations. It's not mainstream Christian theology but it has been doctrine for some small sects.
Most of the list falls into one or more the following categories:
* Scientists who died before Origin of Species was published.
* Scientists who took part in the 19th Century debate that was won by the proponents of evolution because of the overwhelming evidence that they presented.
* Inventors who operated way out of their field when they rejected evolution.
* Scientists who rejected evolution for reasons that seemed good at the time, but which turned out to be flawed.
* Hilariously, at least one scientist whose supporters believed that they were damaging ToE, but who ended up agreeing that they had supplied the most powerful evidence yet that ToE is true that explains why beneficial mutations don't get "mixed" and lost down the generations, which was previously a serious problem with ToE (G Mendel)
Once again, it is the evidence that counts. Have you got any? If you have please post the URL rather than the article in full to save bandwidth.
I certainly didn't and don't expect any evidence I'd care to dig up to influence you in the slightest.
If you were open to influence, the massive amount of data and logic against ToE would already have convinced you.
BTW, I'll post the full articles whenever it feels fitting to me. I still refuse to play your game by your rules.
You have tried to make the invalid point that Creationism is only believed by unscientific, ignorant and mental weakies. The list demonstrates the absurdity of that notion. Your rationalizations to the contrary don't hold the least bit of water with me.
Pluausible enough to me.
Getting pretty close to crass personhood assaults and insults, Fred.
Besides . . . I'd encourage you to get new mirrors since all yours appear to be shattered.
Well, lets find out by showing me some then. You never manage to do that.
If you were open to influence, the massive amount of data and logic against ToE would already have convinced you.
Well, why don't you post references to some of it and let us decide then. I've never seen a good evidence-based argument from a creationist but maybe you've got some. Curiously you consistently refuse to post any though.
BTW, I'll post the full articles whenever it feels fitting to me. I still refuse to play your game by your rules.
Ah, you mean the rules where you have to post something other than unsubstantiated assertions if you want people to listen to you, you mean?
You have tried to make the invalid point that Creationism is only believed by unscientific, ignorant and mental weakies.
I don't recall trying to make that point. Most creationists certainly aren't mental weakies; they just haven't been exposed to the scientific arguments in favour of ToE in an open-minded context.
The list demonstrates the absurdity of that notion. Your rationalizations to the contrary don't hold the least bit of water with me.
The list of dead scientists that you posted doesn't demonstrate the absurdity of anything except standard creationist arguments. None of those scientists believed in quantum mechanics either, does that make quantum mechanics false also? Why limit your "Dead scientists didn't believe in it" argument to the Theory of Evolution?
According to . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . you!
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.