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 ...
which denied the God keep pushing the arrow continuously in flight.
=
which denied the need for God to keep pushing the arrow continuously in flight.
Thank you oh so much for your excellent essay, Alamo-Girl! It is wonderfully clarifying. And thank you for the links!
Hello js1138! But surely you know that Newton was not an atheist, and you’re just pulling my leg. He was, in fact, a Christian. And he realized the tendency of the mechanical explanation of nature inevitably would lead to the conviction that the world is independent of God. Yet he himself apparently thought that his mechanical laws would, over time, generate such disorder that God would have to step in from time to time to set things right again. This was a rather scandalous idea at the time, I gather; but not for the reason you might imagine. The major objection was theological: to say that God must set his creation to rights meant that there was something defective about His creation; and a perfect God would not do shoddy work!
In his Scholium Generale of 1713, Newton says that God constitutes space and time through his eternity and omnipresence: “existendo semper et ubique, durationem et spatium constitutit.” In short, for Newton space is the form of the omnipresence of God, "the Lord of Life with his creatures." We are speaking here of Newton’s concept of absolute, infinite, empty space that he designates sensorium Dei, which suggests to my mind a quite early articulation of the energetic field concept that, to my knowledge (as flawed and partial as it is), was first made explicit by Michael Faraday.
It’s funny, but we rarely hear about this side of Isaac Newton.
And of course God does not have to push arrows in flight; arrows just follow the principles that he loaded into the system in the singularity of the big bang. (At least that is my present suspicion.)
I for one do not assume or have recourse to miracles in daily life, most days at least – in fact not nearly as much as proponents of macroevolution or abiogenesis do; for what such folks propose would constitute a miracle, IMHO, albeit a “godless one.” FWIW
But now I'm pulling your leg.... :^)
Then again, I don’t say that miracles do not happen.
Have a wonderful New Year, js1138!
I especially appreciate your pointing out the lack of curioisity about why the universe is the way it is and not some other way - and why it is at all. It toubles me that so many shrug at those questions.
More directly, I believe the most important question for any teenager to ask is "what is the meaning of life?" The answer, which is often quite personal, sets one's course for decades to come.
CREATIONIST FIRED BY SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
The headline is in error. The creationist was never hired by SA in the first place. All we can see is that the guy went for an interview and didn't get selected, though SA appears to have taken some freelance pieces from him since then.
Archive documenting censorship against Robert V. Gentry
Neither of the requirements placed on Mr Gentry to have his submission accepted are unreasonable. All he needs to do is comply with them.
Gentry, btw, is the scientist who discovered pulonium (sic) halos. His find was initially hailed, until it was realized it blew holes in the Big Bang theory, then it was attacked and he was defunded, etc. Gentry's Credentials were acceptable till his work caused problems that cannot be explained away.
Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis not only blows away Big Bang, it blows away the whole of physics being inconsistent with several theories supported by millions of data points, and his hypothesis is self-inconsistent because he explains his observations by suggesting that other decay rates must have changed whilst curiously that for polonium alone has remained constant. Further Gentry ignores the geology of the areas where the haloes are found, and does not propose a (workable) mechanism whereby polonium alpha-decay might be responsible for the haloes in the first place. Here is a comprehensive refutation of Gentry's assertions
Kenyon I know nothing about I am afraid.
Having read PH College's biblical worldview I would agree that it is inconsistent with science education (and history and archaeology too), since in the very first paragraph students appear to be required to reject open-minded examination of the physical and historical evidence.
If it were some other way, you'd be asking the same question.
And why does it exist at all?
If it didn't, you wouldn't be asking these questions at all.
I don't either. I merely say they are never assumed by science. The default explanation will always be naturalistic, and if explanation eludes science, then the default hypothesis will be naturalistic.
There really isn't any other way to conduct science. If you don't imagine naturalistic explanations, you have nothing to test. If you assume supernatural explanations, you have no reason to test.
Arguing from structure demonstrates nothing in the absense of history. The art of science is to imagine a naturalistic history, then test each piece of the history to see if it happens without intervention. You get no proof, but you get plausibility.
;-)
I'd go beyond that, and say that requiring faculty members to agree to the "statement of biblical worldivew" makes anything beyond rote learning all but impossible; dissent from the university's position on everything from abortion to socialism to pornography is not only a violation of policy, but a heresy.
Don't forget the "International School for the Study of 'No True Scotsman'".....
I forgot to mention posting long lists of scientists who died before Darwin published, and who somehow weren't impressed by his work.
Evolution also follows the principles that God loaded into the system. All the evidence is that it does (and there is a huge amount of such evidence), and evolution does not involve the violation of any natural law.
Gentry's work has not been refuted - though your side does a good job of presenting stretches of the imagination as refutation.
PH College's worldview statement is what it is. If you're a Christian, you're expected to act like one. Embracing science doesn't mean embracing evolution. Evolution is not science. It attempts to put on heirs to that extent; but, it's a belief system - not science. PH merely acknowledges that If you're going to be a Christian in a Christian school you're going to do so in a Christian context. Science is in no way threatened by this. Lest we forget, most of the branches of modern science were started by Christian creationists. Christians are no more threatened by science now than they ever have been - they're rather intrigued by it and enthused at how much science bears up what the Bible says. So, you're essentially saying, you agree that discrimination is a proper activity to involve oneself in for defense of one's belief system.. Just what I was arguing - and what I showed. Thank you.
You discounted two of five, btw - didn't deal with Dini; but, given your approach to Patrick Henry College, I'm sure you could just say "so what". You've illustrated what you presumed to protest. Bad day?
Oh I do so agree with you here, Alamo-Girl! Yet a perceptive person might recall that such a question -- What is the meaning of life? -- cannot be addressed, let alone answered, without answering (consciously or unconsciously) Leibnitz's two great questions: Why are things the way they are, and not some other way? And why is there anything at all?"
One could try, I suppose. But I wouldn't bet money on the result.
Thank you ever so much for your excellent observation.
bb: And why does it exist at all?
Jun: If it didn't, you wouldn't be asking these questions at all.
Your faith -- in something -- shines through here, Junior: That intelligent, biological life is inevitable in any conceivable universe, sooner or later. But it seems to me you take a lot for granted. For one thing, if the universe were some way other than it is, in all probability neither you nor I would be here; and so, neither thee nor me would be asking these questions at all.
Good grief, you show yourself to be a more enthusiastic anthropocentrist than I am!!! And that's saying a lot.
I've been to many other universes, BB. They all have the same rules. Boring, really. But only this one has you, so it's my favorite.
Naturally, I'm flattered by your great graciousness, dear Patrick: You are most charming! But I'm starving for details about those other universes you've been to! :^)
Of course; and of course not respectively, my friend. I am no foe of evolution theory. I just think it needs some serious tweaking right about now, to bring it current with discoveries in other scientific fields. That's all.
Thank you for writing, Thatcherite!
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.