Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 1,401-1,419 next last
To: ItCanHappenToYou
Miller's Paradox:
As a network evolves, the number of Nazi comparisons not forestalled by citation to Godwin's Law converges to zero.
381 posted on 12/22/2004 7:40:59 PM PST by clyde asbury (Khan, I'm laughing at the superior intellect.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Thank you for your reply!

You certainly know what it's like when one side has no intention of behaving respectfully. And you certainly handle it better than most. But you understand that it can be difficult.

Thank you so much for your kind words. Indeed, it can be difficult. IMHO, there is a natural tendency to want to respond in kind - but that solves nothing.

382 posted on 12/22/2004 7:51:46 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Patrick, I think the best way to deal with abusive posters is simply to not respond to them. That's the way I handle it!

BTW, Merry Christmas! I'm glad we've been able to disagree agreeably!


383 posted on 12/22/2004 7:53:06 PM PST by puroresu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Your comments has me envisioning a meticulous little guy with a desk full of paperwork and a "deer in the headlights" look trying to figure out whether "it" is a new species or not.

Hahahahahahaha!!! That's precisely the image I get, Alamo-Girl! Taxonomy run amok!!!

384 posted on 12/22/2004 7:58:20 PM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
LOLOLOL! Since you are already in a good frame of mind, for a chuckle that had my ribs hurting try post #6 on this thread.
385 posted on 12/22/2004 8:02:17 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut; PatrickHenry; Alamo-Girl; marron; Michael_Michaelangelo
The slurs fly fast from them, as does the whining when they feel "attacked". I wonder if any are courteous enough to admit their mistakes when proven?

"From 'them?'" Though uninvited, may I hazard a reply? What slurs? What whining? What attacks? Prove the "mistakes" of your opponent: and then, if they amount to a hill of beans, maybe if fairly persuaded by your carefully qualified evidence and rigorous reasoning, he'd thus be courteous enough to admit them....

Rhetoric only goes so far. So speak in particulars please, so that your objections may be out in the open clearly enough to be publicly refuted.

386 posted on 12/22/2004 8:07:52 PM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; Libloather; marron; PatrickHenry; js1138; Right Wing Professor; ...

Absolutely hysterical, A-G!!! Anyone reading this who hasn't seen post #6 go look -- and LYBO!!!


387 posted on 12/22/2004 8:14:15 PM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Rhetoric only goes so far. So speak in particulars please, so that your objections may be out in the open clearly enough to be publicly refuted.

Indeed. We do love research and rigorous, respectful debate!

388 posted on 12/22/2004 8:27:56 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: bigLusr

"See, if 100% of the scientific community believes that evolution is correct, then how many scientists would disagree that evolution is correct? "

Nitpicky much? Sheesh, maybe I just don't feel like writing 99.999999% everytime.

"It's funny you mention gravity and relativity. Reminds me of an article I read once... "

I'm glad you brought this up, by the way, einstein did NOT disprove newtonian physics, he expounded on it. Big difference pal. Regardless, newtonian physics was replaced by SCIENTISTS, and it was replaced by another, more explanatory SCIENTIFIC theory.

Note the capitalizations there. I have never said evolution is an absolute truth. Absolute truths are not an option in science, they are a lame construct to support a dogma. If evolution is disproven, or a better theory is brought to light tomorrow, like relativity, it will be replaced by SCIENTISTS, with a better SCIENTIFIC theory.

If you knew science you would know that this is the most pwerful element of science, it's self correcting nature. No other institution shares this trait, especially the church with its dumb absolute truths.

Until this new SCIENTIFIC theory comes along, evolution is the best explanatory model. ID is not even in the same room as evolution.


389 posted on 12/22/2004 8:52:38 PM PST by Alacarte (There is no knowledge that is not power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; PatrickHenry
All right. I went through the first two hundred posts. I found that poster Puroescue (Sp?) indicated his willingness to accept evidence to the contrary of an opinion (but which was NOT directly about the debate). Props to him.

Posts # 4,5, and 172 were typical slurs on those who accept the TOE. Posts # 44 and 165 were repetitions of the "charicature" of the TOE that the creationists spin, and which have been refuted hundreds of times on these threads. Oh, #99 was a particularly bad one, too.

That was just in 200 posts.

While I do admit that some on the Evo side get rough, it is only a few individuals. On the Creo side, we see a continuous, multi-thread effort to repeat the same lies, distortions, and charicatures of the TOE, and the same debunked objections to it, as we've seen for years. Devastating evidence has been introduced on the Evo side; to my knowledge, no Creo has ever indicated that he might have been wrong in its face, or even that he might have been misinformed.

390 posted on 12/22/2004 8:52:49 PM PST by Long Cut (The Constitution...the NATOPS of America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: Bellflower

"Since ID has not been taught for many, many years in public schools but evolution has been taught over and over inserted into almost every subject is it no wonder that ID is not understood or believed by many scientist today."

Whoa, we aren't talking about a 'good idea' here. If evolution didn't work, researchers from all life sceinces would know tomorrow. Evolution is NOT a static model. It makes predictions. Scientists use thes epredictions, same way they use the predictions made by gravity (ie, things fall when you drop them). If these predictions did not work, then it would be very obvious, very quickly.

For instance, do a search for 'Pikaia.' It's a stochastic method for minnimizing/maximizing a function, based on natural selection. I used this algorithm to minimize a function for optimizing ballistic trajectories in a computer program. We also implemented 2 purely mathematical, deterministic algorithms, downhill simplex and golden search. Pikaia found the best answer for a function with 18 inputs QUICKER than the purely mathematical models. Ok, if you are not a mathematician or engineer, that likely doesn't make sense, but it worked. If evolution was a hoax, there is no way it would work better than mathematical models to solve a complex problem like minimizing a function with 18 inputs each with at least 10 decimal places. That is a very, very complicated problem.

We could teach scientists ID when they are young, but when they get older and realize ID has no predictive power, they would quickly dismiss it as unscientific, just like they do now.


391 posted on 12/22/2004 9:04:25 PM PST by Alacarte (There is no knowledge that is not power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut

A more important high level observation of the creo/evo debate is that the debate always revolves around EVOLUTION. Why? Because evolution is an actual theory with data nd research and predictions, whereas creationsim 1.0 and 2.0 (ID) have no data, research or predictions to defend!

Somehow the huge explanatory model of evolution is suspect, but the contrary explanation of "god dunnit," never seems to raise any eyebrows among evangelical christians.

I'd like to see a good debate on what ID explains and predicts, like the debates we have on evolution... oh wait, ID doesn't explain or predict ANYTHING, because it is not real science like evolution!


392 posted on 12/22/2004 9:21:39 PM PST by Alacarte (There is no knowledge that is not power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: Alacarte
The debate is actually caused (usually) by the attempts of creationists to get their mythology taught as science in schools. Were this not so, rest assured that few of us would care what they thought.

Some fundamentalists are still smarting from Supreme Court descisions regarding school prayer and other religious displays in government schools. They want, it seems, ALL students exposed to any form of religion possible, with more to follow if available. Note, they still have every right to teach their own children whatever they wish; what they want is to be able to teach OURS. It's why I noted that the vast, overwhelming majority of creationists are from only one or two sects of fundamentalist Christianity. This is NOT a broad-based movement.

For those of more modest faith and honest hearts, the problem is three words..."In His Image", which they take to mean as an image of God himself. This grants humans high superiority over the beasts and the dominion of the world by definition, in addition to providing great amounts of comfort. If the evidence challenges this, well, it might, for some, be difficult to deal with.

393 posted on 12/22/2004 9:39:32 PM PST by Long Cut (The Constitution...the NATOPS of America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: Alacarte
" the contrary explanation of "god dunnit," never seems to raise any eyebrows among evangelical christians."

Many really do not understand the implications of "Goddidit".

For example, a scientist who, as they wish, takes something supernatural into his deliberations, might one day be researching something of critical importance to humanity, only to find a null area for which he cannot account through standard means. If he says, "Oh, well, Goddidit!", he then halts his search for the information. It's a massive cop-out, which precludes further investigation.

394 posted on 12/22/2004 9:44:07 PM PST by Long Cut (The Constitution...the NATOPS of America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas
"You evoluntionary proponents are just like religious zealots when it comes to propping up your current paridigm. If evolutionary theory cannot stand a little competetion from something as inocuous and vague a ID, then it must not be so great a theory."

I am continuously amazed that, lacking any substantial evidence to support ID, ID proponents invariably, and without fail, resort to attacking evolution and those that know evolution as fact. When you have no case, attack and distract to the point your opponent must defend his/herself thereby completely fogging over the real issue.

Uh, huh. ID sure stands on its own merits, don't it?

395 posted on 12/22/2004 10:23:45 PM PST by DaGman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Reverend Jim "Ford Motor Credit" Jones

??? Can you 'splain it to me as if I had no idea what you're talking about?

396 posted on 12/23/2004 12:18:07 AM PST by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut

Duuuuuuuude....

Chillllllll.......

I was simply stating that I can figure out which posts the creationistas will IGNORE because they can't respond to them intellectually. Capisci?


397 posted on 12/23/2004 12:56:31 AM PST by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut

The constant derision of fundamentalist Christians in these threads, combined with the general condescending attitude towards us, makes me think I'm reading DU.

Did it ever occur to you that many of us simply don't think it's possible for the diversity of life on earth to be the result of countless random mutations? Is it an established fact that we're wrong about this? Can it be demonstrated that we're wrong about this?

We're dealing here with highly speculative material. We haven't even scratched the surface on the origins of species. Every theory being tossed around today on this subject could end up abandoned a century from now.

Just look at the issue of where life came from to begin with. Evolutionists here go out of their way to insist that issue isn't part of evolutionary theory. I don't blame them but it does go to show how ignorant all of us are about events that happened long ago which we can't observe. Have we ever observed life forms that reproduce by splitting become, over time, life forms that have two sexes and reproduce sexually? No, how could we? Yet, it's speculated that it happened.

Fine. Speculate away, but don't get carried away and assume evolution is a done deal. Theorizing that assorted things happened without even coming close to demonstrating that they did is well within the realm of scientific inquiry but it's not a foundation from which to declare those who are skeptical to be nitwits.

Sorry if I'm ranting. Merry Christmas! :-)


398 posted on 12/23/2004 1:46:49 AM PST by puroresu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter

Please give a specific definition of love and justice. It should include a test for the presence of love (or justice) and a way to determine which of two systems contains more love (or justice). It should ideally also provide an absolute measurement scale so that ANY system could be given a number that represents the love (or justice) content of that system.


399 posted on 12/23/2004 5:26:15 AM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer; betty boop
"ID" by the very nature of the wording posits a diety

I would claim that ID by the nature of the idea itself posits a deity. (Although not necessarily the Christian God) I have posted this argument a few times and have never had a response from an ID proponent:

ID is the idea that life cannot evolve without the guidance of some intelligent designer. Presumably "life" would include intelligent life. Therefore, in order for intelligence to exist, there must be a designer. However, if this is true, where did the intelligent designer come from? There are two possibilities. First possibility: there must be another, even more intelligent designer who designed the intelligent designer, in which case where did THAT designer come from? This leads to an infinite regression of intelligent designers. Second possibility: the intelligent designer must have either created itself or must have existed eternally. In this case, I think most people would recognize this entity as a deity, although maybe not one with all the characteristics of the Christian God.

400 posted on 12/23/2004 5:36:45 AM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson