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 ...
"Do you really think that no one notices from which particular religious background the (overwhelming) majority of IDers come from?"
Hey, those ID guys with Doctorates from private-school Bible colleges couldn't possibly have a hidden agenda!!
[/sarcasm
Yep, that's the one, Prof. Evolutionary theory seems to be lacking a method to get to the bottom of that question.
Merry Christmas to you too!
"Have they ever, in the history of both man AND religion, wanted this?"
Hell NO! Look at the Catholic Church's suppression of science in the middle Ages.
More recently, look what science did to the hoax Shroud of Turin, which was shown to be a fraud.
Merry Christmas to you all! :-)
On another thread, betty boop observes that Kauffman speaks of his musings as "proto-science" instead of "science" - that it opens "the conceptual space in which science can (hopefully) fruitfully proceed in the devlopment of its work." Perhaps we can find a good moniker in here somewhere...
One point though, the Intelligent Design theorists do not dispute the age of the universe, the fossil record, or much of evolution theory - and thus would not argue about the evidence for the history of life. The dispute arises over the complexity that all of science and mathematics continues to observe in biological life, i.e. that evolution is not an adequate and/or complete explanation.
And indeed, Darwin's formulation "random mutations + natural selection > species" is no longer adequate because of the "randomness" component. It wouldn't be adequate if there were never such a movement called "Intelligent Design". That part of the investigation will surely continue regardless of format: formal, falsifiable scientific theory, mathematical theory with logical proofs, observation of historical records, proto-science - etc.
I really wasn't accusing you of being an alpha female dog. I was wondering if you as a human have ever experienced or observed the love of a dog.
Merry Christmas to both of you!!!
"Fundamentalist Christians (who, it seems, are the ONLY religious sect pushing such things) will use any means possible to get their religion taught in schools, paid for by the government."
Amen, brother. It will get worse over the next 4 years, since they think the election gives them a mandate to force their beliefs onto others.
"Dust" PLUS something else makes all systems in nature, living and non-living! Or so it seems to me.
Matter doesn't deserve a "bum rap." It, plus space and time, are the productions of the Big Bang. We like matter -- without it, nothing would exist. Its "spiritual complement," if I might put it that way, is what makes it to be the various given things of nature "in their serried ranks." And so I think matter does merge "seamlessly with the spiritual."
I note your remark that "spirit" is the name we give to that which we do not yet understand. I think that is a true insight, js1138. And so it seems to me that people who break out in a rash on the mere hearing of the word "spiritual" risk falling into a condition, not only of spiritual, but also of intellectual closure. This would not seem to portend much good for the evolution of science. JMHO FWIW.
And also to you, RA!!!
I love my dog. Now please address the question of natural selection as to the evolution of love which you have for your wife. Was love selected for and therefore has no meaning other than a biochemical expression of your encoded DNA. Or does it have a different and deeper cauality and therefore meaning. If it is biochemical only, please do not tell your wife, as it might break her heart. If it is more than biochemical, please explain its origin and reason of expression. Remember the cattle grazing on the side of a mountain do not genetically grow shorter legs on the left than the right. It is not mediated per environment.
Do you mean evolution as a history, or evolution as a specific set of explanations in the realm of molecular biology and game theory? I have no trouble admitting that biology has no complete description of the sources and processes of mutation.
But I do believe that selection is adequate to explain which changes survive. I have been posting this over and over for several days now, but will try one more time. Darwin did not discover anything about the cause or nature of mutation. He really threw up his hands at trying to explain the mechanism of variation.
What Darwin revealed was the process of selection, which shapes life over the long run. Selection is an observable phenomenon. It is amenable to experimentation. In fact it was artificial selection that suggested natural selection.
If you believe there is some miraculous computer program setting up specific changes in the genome -- whether these changes are determined by initial conditions, or twiddled with on the fly -- selection still shapes life. The final arbiter of good design is survival and reproduction. This is true in biology and it is true in the marketplace (where everything is presumably designed, but chaotic and indeterminate forces -- the invisible hand -- shape things in ways that are beyond the control of mere inventors).
I would ask you politely to go back to my posts and question whether you have actually responded to them. Here's a clue. In every one of your responses you have ignored what I said and have misquoted me in ways that make your posts nonresponsive. I never asked whether you loved your dog, or anything like that.
One last time. Yes I love my dog and have observed on television a wolf pack ebulient in their behavior, frolicking, appearing to have a good time. Now. One last time. Please answer my question. Please explain to all on this thread whether or not the love you have for your wife is the result of microgenetic abberations selected for resulting in a neurochemical response which expresses that as love. Is that where love begins and ends? Is there any other causality which you believe might account for this outward expression of love for your wife. Or is the love you have for your wife simply a chemical reaction. Please, in your answers, do not predicate your response on specious exemplars such as wolves and dogs or any other canid. If you cannot explain, that is a sufficient answer and I will accept that. But if you can explain from a genetic/histiochemical position, I would like to hear it. Love and justice and beauty and origin are some of my greatest interest.
You are trying to force me into an "is that all there is" position. Nice try. I do believe that human love as we experience it requires a body and all the plumbing that goes with it. You can demonstrate this easily by studying people in which the plumbing has been damaged or altered by chemicals.
Is that all there is? I can't say, because I dont know what the "all" refers to. You have placed artificial conceptual boundaries on the properties of physical objects that don't exist in reality. You have a billiard ball concept of physics that doesn't match anything science has been dealing with since the 19th century.
Is the love exhibited by dogs similar to that shown by humans. I think so. And I think most people would agree with me.
That should eliminate your problem as well because you would then be responsible for teaching your own d****ed kids your own d****ed myths.
The public school system in America has failed!
"The real crime of ID is assuming that things that are unknown are unknowable. If we cannot demonstrate abiogenesis then it is not worth investigating."
That's complete BS. IDers are not against investigation into Darwinism, they are for being honest about its problems. IDers are not saying we should abandon lines of research, but saying we need to be more honest about them.
Satan's favorite kind. He has no more effective worker than someone who claims to be for Christ while working fervently against Him.
MM
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.