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 ...
So let me get this straight, you want a good ID supporting scientist to present a paper to all the good TOE supporter scientist types out there for peer review and the ID fellow is going to tell all these types that the emperor has no clothes and these folks who have bought into the TOE and staked their livelihood on its veracity are going to say 'what a wonderful paper you've written, let's publish it'? Sure. Who are trying to kid?
You got me, I'm a huge Plato fan...http://www.hasbro.com/playdoh/
No, actually I hadn't seen that thread. But I do believe there's a real problem with putting the burden of religious instruction on public school teachers, which is essentially what ID instruction does. You get ten kids in a class from ten different religious denominations and you'll have fireworks.
I have "no dog in this fight," but it does seem to me that folks are intent on destroying, dismantling and otherwise creating a fair amount of havoc in the public ed arena...public education is probably more or less doomed because of this -- so it's no big deal. However, it is somewhat sad to witness.
Not what I was trying to do. Your question was so full of holes, I thought you would like to learn what the real theories are about.
BTW, I waded thru them. Was well worth it.
Oh, we are talking mathematical models now - and here I was thinking that you were going to tell me all about something that had been observed to evolve into something else. Sure, now that I understand, it's a bona fide model we are talking about, I'm convinced!
I've heard the phrase, but have no idea what secular humanism is. Do they have meetings? When I picture it from descriptions on this board, I kinda picture a bland, sitcom type morality that somehow involves "always doing the right thing," learning a valuable lesson when you don't and buying something on sale at a chain discount store.
"Haven't read this one yet, but it matches your criteria. Published in "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington" by the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C."
I couldn't find this paper on a search of the BSW website, actually I couldn't find their website period. They can't be too important. Though I did find the article you mention in a google search. The Wikipedia website, which I trust for the most part, states "To date, the intelligent design movement has succeeded at publishing one article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, although that journal has subsequently disowned the paper."
Technically you are correct, you found a paper published in a peer reviewed journal, despite the fact it was later retracted, I should have been more specific. Regardless, the scientific community rejects ID.
"Evolutionists threw a fit about it after it was published, so the journal quickly went into self-defense mode and said "oh, oh, we didn't mean to publish this article". The evolution lobby is just as powerful as the other lobbies."
Obviously you know the paper was retracted. Saying the fact that there are no papers on ID is a product of scientific bias, rather than a lack of scientific integrity on the part of ID, is simply your opinion. The fact remains that the scientific community 100% rejects ID, and accepts evolution. So now we have 1 retracted paper on ID, versus thousands, literally thousands of papers on evolution across many disciplines. Hmmm.
Didn't you even look at my links from post #125?
Evidence-this is an interesting word. In and of itself it is a term to describe what you wish it to be. If you were a lawyer you might consider certain species of proof to be one thing, while you opponent might consider that certain species of proof the opposit. For example you have no direct evidence of evolution do you? If you do you are rewriting the books. Some might say you have exculpative evidence or expert witness evidence, but alas, these evidences are opinion of man. In our discussion one mans opinion is just that,opinion. If one desires to validate his life on that opinion, it is his buisness. But it does not bear any more value than the other mans opinion. Now relevant evidence, though subjective, is probably the species to which you refer. But examine that phrase, relevant evidence. Tangible evidence is objective, empirical evidence which can be demonstrated. Tangible evidence does not a proof make. You hold a cambium cyanoalgae fossil and say there is your proof. I hold in my hand the eye of Equus and of the octopus and say here is proof against evolution because I do not have enough faith to believe that this degree of complexity in form and function could per random spontandous generation arrive at the same point of developmental comparative anatomy. So tangible evidence as a proof is subjective. What the evolutionist has is proffered evidence-that is the admissibility or inadmissibility of which is dependent upon the existence or nonexistence of a preliminary fact. Another way to say this is -the evolutionist believes in evolution as dependent upon what he wants to believe in. In other words, faith. Now faith is the belief in that not seen. This is the mechanism by which Christians believe in God of the Bible, faith. At this time I will not address evidence beyond doubt. As an adherent of skepticism, you define yourself as doubting. Therefore the title of this thread is entirely correct, despite protestations of religious zelot contending for their faith in Evolutionary theory.
Sign off
Merry Christmas to all
Songwriter
D'oh!
" I have "no dog in this fight," but it does seem to me that folks are intent on destroying, dismantling and otherwise creating a fair amount of havoc in the public ed arena...public education is probably more or less doomed because of this -- so it's no big deal. However, it is somewhat sad to witness. "
My pups are all out save one, and it's already waaaay too late for them to ruin her future. As has already been said, they can rant and rave and screw up their own kids all they want, but in the end, it's the person with the solid education that is going to compete in the marketplace. My kids are simply going to be more competitive and have better choices in life because they have a reality based , fact based, solid education, not a faith based one. Darwinism in action.
One poster spoke of "disestablishing the public education system" or some such.
At least he was honest about the real motive for all of this.
Their system is failing to produce enough converts to sustain itself, so they attempt to decimate the competing system, which does reach those minds. People need to know that their children have become targets, objects to be aquired, and should behave accordingly.
Howdy.
"Oh, we are talking mathematical models now -"
I guess you didn't look at the link, huh?
"Who are trying to kid?"
Ha! If evolution was scientifically provable as being in doubt, there would be 10 papers published everyday attacking it. Any scientist who could disprove evolution would win a nobel tomorrow, and secure their place in history alongside einstein and edison.
Look how long it took scientists to pounce on Pons and Fleischman!
Either way, you as much as agreed with me that the scientific community 100% agrees that evoltion is correct and ID is religion.
BTW, you seem to have a severe misconception on the definition of the word 'theory' in science... You focus on it as if the fact that evolution is a 'theory' somehow mitigates its authenticity. That is a very stupid assumption and dislpays a lack of even basic scientific understanding. The word 'theory' in science is not the same as 'theory' in common conversation. A 'theory' in science is on par with a 'law,' but in a larger scope. Evolution is as much fact as gravity and relativity. Strangely you have no problem with those 'theories.'
I suspect you've been told this before, yet you persist with the misconception because it appears more convincing to the other scientific illiterates who may be reading.
I already see it happening here in NYC. You meet someone who works at a high level in science, say chemistry, and he feels more of a connection/kinship to some chemist in sweden than the waitress in Idaho. When you point out that she's an American and the Swedish guy isn't, he'll say, "why do you think I left Ohio?"
Howdy Mr. Durasell,
I know you want to pick a fight with me, but its that time of year for charity. And it is so late. You boys have been kind of hard on those contending for the faith. A little kindness isn't beyond the reach of you evolutionist. I am sure that gene evolved from that great white shark that bit that poor fellow in to 2 pieces.
Anyway, I hope you and yours have a nice Christmas and are all healthy.
sincerely
Songwriter
I did actually glance through them. There is just too much material there to wade through, decipher, condense down and make an argument - all without losing a couple of hours more of sleep. Don't get me wrong - it would be wonderful if we all had read and were up to speed on all the material that the various posters had access to. That would mean that the discussion could commence in oh - say 20 or 30 years from now. All I was essentially asking for was a statement that _____ had been observed evolving into ________.
They are taking little jabs here at the public school system, which is excellent. I think one reason they hate this particular system is that it really delivers, and disproves their complaints about public education.
Naw, don't want to pick a fight with you tonight. Just glad to see a familiar tag. And wanting to wish you and yours a Merry Christmas as well.
And, for the record, I do not think that science and belief are mutually exclusive. I have personally met deeply religious scientists -- it would seem the more one knows about the "clockwork" of our universe, the more awed and humbled they become.
...we've sparred, but it's never gotten nasty, has it? If so, then I apologize.
No apologies needed. I was just picking at you. Don't you ever go to bed. Its is nearly 2o'clock here. I am a little worried about Radio. I have never met him. He was rough on some of our FR friends. Pride and self idolotry is not becomming of us mortals. But you guys don't seem to agree. I have so many questions about everything, but I am sure about a few things. For example, why not "the energiezer bunny" instead?
Thank you :-)
There is just too much material there to wade through, decipher, condense down and make an argument - all without losing a couple of hours more of sleep.
Indeed, there is alot of material there.
All I was essentially asking for was a statement that _____ had been observed evolving into ________.
Here is a post that shows the evolution of ants from a poster far more knowledgeable than I:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/915674/posts?page=1703#1703
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.