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

[RadioAstronomer]

Merry Christmas

Merry Christams to you as well.

[Dimensio]

Aside from the laughable assertion that one must first disprove something that was never proved in the first place

Nothing in science is ever proven. Your statement is laughable, for something that is truly "proven" cannot be "disproven".

You're attempting to duck the issue because you don't like the standards set by the scientific method, which is not an uncommon occurence amongst creationists.

[RadioAstronomer]

Yes, exactly. Under some circumstances:

If their faith is that shaky, they have more problems that some words or posts on some crevo thread.

[Dimensio]

Secular humanism is a philosophy that many religious conservatives assert is a religion. The US government has never recognized it as a religion, however, and typically when someone asserts that a certain topic -- like evolution -- is part of the "secular humanist agenda" what it really means is that the topic doesn't happen to go against what a secular humanist might believe, not that it's part and parcel of the philosophy.

It's like claiming that teaching Calculus is akin to teaching Christianity simply because the theorems of Calculus don't contradict the religion.

[js1138]

It quite logically (and by probability) concludes that some things could not happen by chance ...

Chance has little to do with it. The processes assumed by evolution are regular, consistent and lawful. Every process assumed by evolution has been observed. Obviously the entire history of life has not been observed, nor is there any explanation of its beginning. Nor is there any foreseeable point at which every question will be answered.

Speaking of regular processes, perhaps you'd like to tackle a few questions from the perspective of ID.

1. Does the process of selection occur?
2. Do changes to the genome occur, includation copy errors, insertions, variations in chromosome count?
3. How many changes are required to produce an easily observable difference in body structure (for example, number of legs)?
4. What exactly is a species?
5. What mechanism prevents a series of changes from becoming a new species?

[betty boop]

ID is not a scientific theory and should not be taught as an alternative to evolution in our schools.

I don't think that ID is offering itself as an "alternative" to evolutionary theory. Indeed, I understand it as attempting to fill in the glaring gaps in Darwinist theory -- e.g., the role of information in the evolution of biological life. I know of no ID theorist who is "pushing God."

It is quite clear (to me at least) that life is an evolutionary process. But somewhere along the line, matter had to "get smart" in order for life to evolve. ID seeks to explain the mechanism for this. No more and no less.

The fact that Darwinism (at least neo-Darwinism) refuses to admit that there is any shortcoming in its theory whatsoever suggests to me that it has become a cult, in the strict meaning of that word. As such, it is a victim of "arrested development." FWIW, it seems to me that science is not well served by the Darwinist's relentless closure to ideas being developed in physics, information science, and other fields that purport "fill in the gaps" of the Darwinist account -- which is the method of (the most unfortunately named) Intelligent Design. Had they called this field something else -- anything else! -- it probably wouldn't be encountering all this irrational flak from "true believers."

[Dimensio]

Like a lizard woke up and went DOH! I want some feathers..

See, this is why no one with a brain takes creationists seriously. Even after they've been informed that they're mistaken about evolution, they continue to repeat the same lies over and over again. They show that they're not just ignorant, but they're also shameless liars.

[Dimensio]

The atheists didn't like the cultist charge thrown back at 'em I see. I see they deny their faith in evolution.

What about the theists who accept evolution? Or are you dishonestly asserting (as many creationists do) that all who accept evolution are atheists?

[js1138]

Scientifically speaking please tell me how love and justice evolved.

Ever had a dog? Ever observe a wolf pack? Are you suggesting that love is not useful?

[Dimensio]

I think that he is resorting to the common creationist lie that all who accept evolution are atheists. When creationists can't win by lying about evolution, they try lying about those who accept it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'd sooner believe Michael Moore than many of the creationists around here.

[Dimensio]

And atheistic evolutionists presuppose their is no God or supernatural created force.

And theistic evolutionists typically believe that a God or supernatural force is behind the process of evolution.

You might have more credibility if you'd stop tossing in the red herring of atheism vs. theism.

[Dimensio]

And yet another creationists dishonestly asserts that evolution = atheism.

[puroresu]

#####I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'd sooner believe Michael Moore than many of the creationists around here.#####

Why shouldn't you? He's surely an evolutionist! :-)

[RadioAstronomer]

I don't think that ID is offering itself as an "alternative" to evolutionary theory.

IMHO, it is trying to.

Indeed, I understand it as attempting to fill in the glaring gaps in Darwinist theory -- e.g., the role of information in the evolution of biological life. I know of no ID theorist who is "pushing God."

Gaps yes, but such is science. Some are being filled in a we speak, other may never be. Welcome to a scientific theory. :-) And yes "ID" by the very nature of the wording posits a diety. Thusly ID is "pushing" God.

It is quite clear (to me at least) that life is an evolutionary process.

For me as well! :-)

But somewhere along the line, matter had to "get smart" in order for life to evolve. ID seeks to explain the mechanism for this. No more and no less.

Why?

The fact that Darwinism (at least neo-Darwinism) refuses to admit that there is any shortcoming in its theory whatsoever suggests to me that it has become a cult, in the strict meaning of that word. As such, it is a victim of "arrested development." FWIW, it seems to me that science is not well served by the Darwinist's relentless closure to ideas being developed in physics, information science, and other fields that purport "fill in the gaps" of the Darwinist account -- which is the method of (the most unfortunately named) Intelligent Design. Had they called this field something else -- anything else! -- it probably wouldn't be encountering all this irrational flak from "true believers."

As far as I know, there is no theory called "Darwinism". However, the theory of evolution is being tested every day.

[Dimensio]

And, of course, the most infamous one of all

[puroresu]

RadioAstronomer, I would tend to agree with you that Intelligent Design implies a Creator. We surely disagree on the theory that accumulated mutations can account for the diversity of life on earth.

However, agree or disagree, let me also wish you a Merry Christmas and say thanks to you for your polite demeanor in discussing issues here.

[Dimensio]

I think you are way too hung up on semantics. However, if it would make you feel better, call ID an alternative explanation.

"Last Thursdayism" is also an "alternative explanation". Should that also be given equal time?

[Modernman]

In reading this thread I can say we have met the real enemy of our Republic.

Refusal to allow opposing viewpoints into one's political party is liberal trait.

If you are looking for mindless adherence to the party line, go to DU.

I guess these atheist poster consider themselves some sort of a Republican, or more likely, Libertarian, else they wouldn't be posting on Free Republic. The whole lot of you are no better than the demonrats, marxists, abortionists, queers, ACLU, anti-Christmas warriors, and those who tear down the ten commandments, in my opinion

Well, you know what they say about opinions and buttholes....

[js1138]

But somewhere along the line, matter had to "get smart" in order for life to evolve.

How about "In the beginning?" I keep wondering we are made from "dust" if dust isn't capable of being alive.

Personally, I think matter has been given a bum rap, a baseless assumption that matter does not merge seamlessly with the spiritual (the spritual being our designation for what we currently don't understand).

[RadioAstronomer]

However, agree or disagree, let me also wish you a Merry Christmas and say thanks to you for your polite demeanor in discussing issues here.

You are most welcome. I try not to step on a persons faith. Heck, I sure don't have all the answers.

Merry Chrismas! :-)