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

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Dang dude... you are getting entirely too wound-up over this stuff. Take a break. Sheesh.

If the ToE is such a sound theory, then it should stand on it's own and not suffer due to Creationist's interpretations of the supposed evidence and of their understanding of the theory. What are you so afraid of?

[Blzbba]

"Barry Lynn, of course, as usual, is full of it. "


I think he's spot-on here. I don't want my kid being forced to learn Christian mythology in my tax-paid public schools.

Even a blind ACLU squirrel finds an acorn now and then.

[Blzbba]

"ID must be taught in mythology or religion class where it belongs."


Yep. Mythology is my choice here.

[Blzbba]

"You forgot to mention the Pi cultists, dude."


Don't forget those Prime Number bastards!!

[Dimensio]

If the ToE is such a sound theory, then it should stand on it's own and not suffer due to Creationist's interpretations of the supposed evidence and of their understanding of the theory. What are you so afraid of?

Scientific ignorance overtaking the population, sending us into another dark age.

Hosepipe's absurd commentary is an example of the ignorance that I fear.

[js1138]

The whole lot of you are no better than the demonrats, marxists, abortionists, queers...

That sentiment would go nicely on a Christmas card.

[RadioAstronomer]

Whoooops! Missed the "t"

Merry Christmas!

[atlaw]

"Good argument - just throw lots and lots of pages of fine-print stuff at someone and let THEM take hours and hours to squint and wade through it. A wonderful tactic to deflect a simple question that remains unanswered."

In other words -- "If you can't put it on a bumper sticker, I ain't gonna read it."

[hosepipe]

[ 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. ]

SLAP...SLAP... pay attention....
I was re-iteratiing the post I was responding to... THEN I commented..
(DUuuuH!).

So, then, You are a believer, I take it..
One of the faithful.. with a mindset more logically open than, say, myself who don't trust any "story" that seems far fetched to me.. -AND- have determined that I don't know what you do -or- (if I was honest) would have swallowed the same bull sperm you were injected with(about evolution) i.e. like you did..

Thats O.K. with me but that leaves me with a question..
Are you a democrat ?...

[Blzbba]

"You evoluntionary proponents are just like religious zealots"


Not really - we tend to base our arguments on observed fact, rather than stories written (and revised multiple times) in some old book.

I mean, honestly - the only thing Creationists can use in an argument is "Well, it's what's written in this old book.", an argument that doesn't do much good in a discussion of fact.

[Alamo-Girl]

What an excellent post, betty boop! Well said.

Had they called this field something else -- anything else! -- it probably wouldn't be encountering all this irrational flak from "true believers."

I agree with you that the name "Intelligent Design" was an unfortunate choice of words. Of a truth, there is no distinguishable difference (IMHO) between Crick's theory of cosmic ancestry and Intelligent Design theory.

Another unfortunate choice of words, IMHO, was "irreducible complexity". If they had simply said "complexity" then all the arguments used for functional complexity and Kolmogorov complexity could be equally asserted. As it is, much of their time is consumed with defending a narrow definition while not being able to assert other types of complexity as illustrative of the points they seek to make.

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.

Indeed. Seems to me that some "true believers" are brought kicking and screaming to acknowledging discoveries which either expose or help to close the gaps in the original theory. The central dogma of molecular biology and punctuated equilibrium evidently arrived with minor bumps compared to information theory and molecular biology, cellular automata, etc. which require giving up the notion of randomness as a driving force.

[Blzbba]

"And because YOU think evolution is a cultic belief does not make it so.

See how that works?"


LOL! Nice call. Still, that's about the only argument Creationists have in this discussion. That, and "Well, that's not what the Bible says!".

[Blzbba]

"Intelligent design is a Trojan Horse for bringing religious creationism back into public school science classes.
The truth always bears repeating."


One more time!

[Blzbba]

"Science classes in high school should focus on ideas that are accepted by a consensus of the scientific community."


Which eliminates ID from consideration.

[js1138]

I have no problem wit intelligent design being a hypothesis. When it accumulates 50 years or so of supporting evidence then it might be called a theory.

Assuming it comes up with soe objective methodology for determining that something cannot occur through natural, regular processes.

You and I have been round and round on this. I have no problem with considering the possibility that existence is designed in order to bring about life. But that says nothing about the process or the history of life.

[Texas Songwriter]

Please don't tell me you the love you have for your wife is the same as an alpha male canis lupus has for the alpha female. Has it come to this. Now please set your quips aside and tell me how love and justice was selected for. Was that mediated by neurochemicals at the synaptic junction? I ask this question without requirement of you starting at the beginning. If you persist in silliness, I will require you to go to origin of the universe. I have asked you a simple question. Please tell me how, through natural selection, love and justice evolved. Is love and justice encoded in our DNA? Please tell me if Phylum Coelenterata was embued with these genetic codes and how they were selected for.

[PatrickHenry]

And yet another creationists dishonestly asserts that evolution = atheism.

I suppose they could benefit from learning about this thread:
Tough Assignment: Teaching Evolution To Fundamentalists. The professor is a devout conservative Christian.

[Blzbba]

"..There is no proof for evolution and lots of proof against it."


There's plenty of proof for evolution. It may not be 100%, but to say that there "is no proof" is ignorant.


"The main evoluionary scientists are liberals and bury their head in the sand, "

Actually, when it comes to burying their heads in the sand, fundamentalist/evangelical Christians have a long history of doing this whenever anything scientific is discussed. The idiots who attempt pathetic refutes of age-dating leap to mind...except of course when those age-dating techiques are used to verify or debunk some dumb artifact found in Israel that is claimed to be Jesus' underwear.


"Evolution isn't taught, it is indoctrinated into our children. "


Yet, according to you, these children become "lots of scientists in ALL (sic) displines (that) do not support evolution" ??


"If ID isn't anything to worry about then why not let it be taught? "

Let's also teach the Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, and Zoroastrian versions of Creation too. They're harmless. Besides, since many of these people become scientists who refute evolution, than teaching evolution must be pretty harmless too.


"It has been proven a mathmatical impossibility for life to have started out of non life. "


That's completelty false. You really need to do some research on this subject before making any more posts like this that honestly discredit ID more than evolution, if ID's supporters are this misinformed.

[Ben Chad]

Now that's a woodshed beating. :-)

[Right Wing Professor]

Betty Boop, there is no evidence - none - that matter had to 'get smart', whatever that means, in order for life to evolve. 'ID theorist' is a misnomer; no one pushing ID is doing theory at any level a real scientist would recognize. There are no particularly worrisome gaps in the modern theory of evolution, barring the gap at the very beginning of life. The 'ideas being developed in physics, information science, and other fields', to which you refer, are as evanescent and as out-on-the-fringe as they've ever been. Most of the stuff about extended coherent states and biophotons I've seen posted on FR would be dismissed in five minutes by any competent condensed matter physicist.

And your portrayal as mainstream biological scientists as a 'cult' frankly discredits only yourself and those who might take you seriously.

I feel frankness deserves reciprocal frankness. Merry Christmas.