Skip to comments.
The Religious Cult of Evolution Fights Back
PostItNews.com ^
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 ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: aclu; creation; crevolist; cults; evolution; intelligentdesign; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320, 321-340, 341-360 ... 1,401-1,419 next last
To: muawiyah
" Learn to take care of your own kids."
I'm in agreement. Just keep the insults relegated to me, not my children. I've given you that courtesy here. It's apparent that you & I can 'take it' so let's keep it between us.
"if you don't want to go around thinking your children have been insulted, keep it in your britches."
Keep what in my britches? That made no sense, sorry.
Damn Jesus freaks!
321
posted on
12/22/2004 2:14:50 PM PST
by
Blzbba
(Conservative Republican - Less gov't, less spending, less intrusion.)
To: PatrickHenry
The concept of species is an artifact of our desire to put everything into neat boxes. Darwin, 140 years ago, said species should be regarded as strong varieties.
One of the little mentioned predictions of evolution (following from the assumption that all living things are related by common descent) is that species can be difficult to classify. In a Darwinian world, one would expect to find speciatiation in progress at all times. One need not look to the fossil record to find intermediates. We have found them and they are us.
322
posted on
12/22/2004 2:16:15 PM PST
by
js1138
(D*mn, I Missed!)
To: superskunk
323
posted on
12/22/2004 2:21:18 PM PST
by
jennyp
(Latest creation/evolution news: http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
To: js1138
What is "Is that all there is" position? By plumbing, do mean the reproductive system. If so, that in not and never has been integral to my question. I ask you again, Is love due to a genetic breakage and selected for and expressessed by a neurohistiochemical reaction at the axonal synapse, resulting in love? Let us try this...yes or no. If no, then please explain. I have read Darwin,Ingles,Marx,Nitche, and many others but the only time I have run across "Is that all there is" was in a teeniebopper song which I cannot remember..Maybe Brenda Lee's song. You are making this harder than it needs to be. If you say I have constructed a straw man, please deconstruct, in scientific detail. Look I am just a country boy who is trying to get to some answers. I figure you have them so please,share the wisdom.
To: jennyp
How about Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot? What were they devoted to besides anti creationism and murder?
To: js1138; betty boop
Thank you so much for your reply!
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 agree that natural selection is an adequate explanation for which changes survive! And I also agree that evolution is a rational explanation for the fossil record much like anthropology, archeology and Egyptology seek to explain the historical record filling in the blanks based on data gathered from collected artifacts. And yes, you are correct, my objection to the theory of evolution is that the "random mutation" part of the formulation is either or both not adequate/incomplete. The good news is that a lot of scientists and mathematicians are working on it!
But, for the record, this is the also the main thrust of the Intelligent Design argument - that the evidence speaks against happenstance and for a directed, purposeful or orderly mechanism. But, again, Intelligent Design "theorists" do not identify the source of that direction - whether God, cosmic ancestry, collective consciousness, etc.
To: superskunk
"Islamo-fascist"? I believe that is the 1st cousin to the nazi. We are not allowed to use that characterization on these discussions. I noticed that an evolutionist chastened a Christian for doing so. Sauce for the gander.
To: Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...
But understand that there are lots of scientists that believe in ID. Every hear of Dr Gary Parker? Ever read Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson?Parker has his doctorate in education; Johnson is a lawyer, not a scientist. 'Nuff said!
328
posted on
12/22/2004 2:41:42 PM PST
by
IonImplantGuru
(PhD, School of Hard Knocks)
To: Sola Veritas
I'm confused. Does this mean that we should now consider that global warming is really not "created" by "intelligence" ( tongue in cheek ) and in fact, relates more likely to natural events only, and should not be taught in schools?
To: Texas Songwriter
I will always call it the way I see it. If I get banned, then so be it.
330
posted on
12/22/2004 2:47:59 PM PST
by
superskunk
(Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
To: PatrickHenry
Did you actually READ what they said in your link about RING species?
These conclusions were based on broad patterns in the distribution and relationships of many species. But determining how speciation occurs in any particular case can be difficult, (NO SHIT?) because we are usually only presented with the outcome (all ToE ever gives us is the outcome, and speculation of that outcome!)
of the process (two species) and we often have no (NEVER is rendered OFTEN by dishonest evolutionists)
record of their common ancestor or (NO SHIT!) the intermediate forms that occurred during speciation. Ring species acquire new traits as they move away from the ancestral home.
Ring species provide unusual and valuable situations in which we can observe two species and the intermediate forms connecting them. In a ring species: A ring of populations encircles an area of unsuitable habitat. At one location in the ring of populations, two distinct forms coexist without interbreeding, (remember this folks!) and hence are different species. Around the rest of the ring, the traits of one of these species change gradually, through intermediate populations, into the traits of the second species.
California salamanders exhibit ring species traits. Ensatina salamanders One well-studied ring species consists of salamanders in the Ensatina eschscholtzii group, distributed in mountains along the west coast of North America. In 1949, Robert Stebbins5 described a fascinating pattern of geographical variation in these salamanders: Two distinct forms of Ensatina salamanders, differing dramatically in color, coexist in southern California and interbreed there only rarely. (This must mean they are humping continuously!)
These two forms are connected by a chain of populations to the north that encircles the Central Valley of California, and through this ring of populations the color patterns of the salamanders change gradually.
DNA analysis supports a common ancestor for these salamanders. Stebbins thought that this situation arose when an ancestral population of salamanders, in northern California, expanded southward along two fronts, one down the Sierra Nevada mountains, and the other down the coastal mountains. The two groups gradually became different as they moved south. When they met again in southern California, the two expanding fronts were so different that they rarely interbred, and were therefore different species.
So we see that they are TWO different species that RARELY interbred...you know like Saint Bernard's and Cocker Spaniels are TWO different species. LOL! And notice how evolutionists are short on facts, mathematical descriptions, but love to tell these grand stories of life and what MUST have happened...EXCEPT it Didn't Not even in their own story, the two species they depict are still interbreeding! Incredible! Probably these Salamanders are producing turtles or something...that will be the next article! And they never even observe that the Salamander populations may exhibit different color changes cause the rocks may be of different hues? Even human beings have different shades of skin based on geographical location. Lame! This is always used in evolutionary tautologies. Variation (well established and observed) in species, is suddenly NEW species!
331
posted on
12/22/2004 2:51:42 PM PST
by
Jehu
To: jennyp
Muslims are devout creationists.
That's what I was assuming. I'm just tired of liberals attacking every decent American institution.
332
posted on
12/22/2004 2:52:15 PM PST
by
superskunk
(Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
To: superskunk
"Muslims are devout creationists."
Not very good at creating a democracy :-)
333
posted on
12/22/2004 2:57:48 PM PST
by
Jehu
To: Jehu
Not very good at creating a democracy :-)
...or technology, industry, diplomacy, justice & equity, indoor plumbing,.....
334
posted on
12/22/2004 3:00:43 PM PST
by
superskunk
(Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
To: superskunk
Or dentistry, or woman's fashions, or books, or good ski resorts...I could go on...
335
posted on
12/22/2004 3:03:27 PM PST
by
Jehu
To: Jehu
Hold it now.....I think those burkas are HOT!
336
posted on
12/22/2004 3:08:40 PM PST
by
superskunk
(Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
To: RadioAstronomer
Faith is shaken all the time, even though many don't like to admit it. My own view is that people need to believe in something larger than themselves. It's wired into our DNA. I try not to mess with the faith of others, either in words or deeds. If I find offense at all, it's in the manner that some people try to bring others into their faith and how some belief systems seem intent on ringing the door bell while I'm sleeping (and I don't mean that as a metaphor. I mean actually ringing my door bell while I am actually sleeping).
337
posted on
12/22/2004 3:13:50 PM PST
by
durasell
(Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
To: durasell
338
posted on
12/22/2004 3:16:57 PM PST
by
general_re
("What's plausible to you is unimportant." - D'man)
To: general_re
339
posted on
12/22/2004 3:19:26 PM PST
by
durasell
(Friends are so alarming, My lover's never charming...)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
If Life was intelligently designed, then *everything* that has been done to this point was and is ID research. So all mainstream biology is ID research, or none is. So all we really need to teach is mainstream biology, complete with evolution. There's no need to set aside some class time for anything else.
Which is good, because ID hasn't come up with any intellectual content to put in a slice of "alternate discussion" class time. At least, not that belongs in a science class.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320, 321-340, 341-360 ... 1,401-1,419 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson