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

[js1138]

Nobody has a problem with physics, or chemistry...

So how old is the earth?

[Right Wing Professor]

Problem is, that person was banned and thus couldn't possibly be posting here now. Besides, the name was different.

LOL!

[Jehu]

4 or five billion, probably. Try again.

[Jehu]

They can dish it out.

[Doctor Stochastic]

evolution is a theory, gravity is a law

No. They are both theories. A "law" is an observed regularity; a "theory" is an explanation of such regularities. Neither becomes the other.

[Shryke]

Come teach me something else that you know nothing about.

You are under the false impression that I am an atheist, and know nothing about Christianity. You are wrong on both counts.

But, now that you have challenged me, let's get into Christianity. Tell me, what does Christ teach regarding others' real or perceived agression towards you? In fact, what are some of the core beliefs of Christianity?

P.S. I complained about your lack of Christian behavior, not your religion in of iteself.

[Texas Songwriter]

That is an answer. The love for your wife is mediated by gonadal hormones under the influence of neural axonal synaptic discharges. That is it? It seems you side with the position that love (you refer to the sex act as love) is without reason, but the playing out of a physical act as the result of abberrant genetic selection and is therefore meaningless. For you to say I love you,my wife, holds no more meaning than for you to say "I have a gastrintestinal pain, or an itch, and is there fore meaningless." The institution of marriage is only utilitarian under this application. Would you take a bullet for your wife, and why or why not? Is there another kind of love you might find somewhere inside your soul? Let us pretend for a moment. Consider the possibility that love is not sex, after all you being a canine loveing person, have seen 5 male dogs following a bitch in heat. When she comes in and stands for them those neurons produce work and copulation is generally achieved by several of the males. No different for what you describe as love. But for a moment consider that there is a love of selflessness given up for your wife that is actually detrimental to perpetuation of species. Let us say you and your wife have not procreated, and are therefore not succcessful as biological specimens. Consider that there is God who said to you, "I love you, and to proove that I will die for you, and to proove I am God I will rise from the dead. You will give an accout to Me. I tell you, Love you wife, even as I have loved you. This is agape love, not sexual physical motor activity. This is the love which passes understanding to the evolutionist, I think because it is not that evolutionary theory is so compelling, but because the only explaination to account for this time, space, energy,matter continuum we call the universe, is God of the Bible and the evolutionist begins, not at the biginning of all possibilities, but at a beginning minus the possibility. Carl Sagan, famous astronomer, said that in a moment of uncharacteristic candor. He had predicated his life, his education, his reputation, and total persona to the same empty notion that love is nothing more than neurotransmitters operating a machine. I hope you take a closer look at these subjects and consider all possibilities. Beware of evolutionist and religious types who seek to procure your adoration by their pronouncements. Look and think for yourself, but with consideration for some possibilities you have heretofore dismissed completely. I remember the time when I believed George Gaylord Simpson, a famous comparative anatomist and paleontologist, just because he said it. Then he said some things which did not register with me and I started trying to understand the universe. Dr.Simpson wanted me to believe him because it validated his world view and therefore him. That makes you feel good. Being a devote to the theory of evolution is not nearly as important as being devoted to the love of your wife. That is a love which is not genetically mediated but emminates from your very soul.
Anyway, I wish you a merry Christmas and Happy New Year. I will be here at FR to look for you and perhaps we will meet again.

Songwriter

[js1138]

Here's your problem with Meyer: a charge of academic fraud has been made against Meyer and the "peer reviewed" publication in which his article appeared. The charge specifies the person responsible, Richard von Sternberg, and his motive. Why have Meyer and Sternberg not even responded or acknowledged the charge?

The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (PBSW) is a respected, if somewhat obscure, biological journal specializing in papers of a systematic and taxonomic nature, such as the description of new species. A review of issues in evolutionary theory is decidedly not its typical fare, even disregarding the creationist nature of Meyer's paper. The fact that the paper is both out of the journal's typical sphere of publication, as well as dismal scientifically, raises the question of how it made it past peer review. The answer probably lies in the editor, Richard von Sternberg. Sternberg happens to be a creationist and ID fellow traveler who is on the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group at Bryan College in Tennessee. (The BSG is a research group devoted to the determination of the created kinds of Genesis. We are NOT making this up!) Sternberg was also a signatory of the Discovery Institute's "100 Scientists Who Doubt Darwinism" statement. [3] Given R. v. Sternberg's creationist leanings, it seems plausible to surmise that the paper received some editorial shepherding through the peer review process. Given the abysmal quality of the science surrounding both information theory and the Cambrian explosion, it seems unlikely that it received review by experts in those fields. One wonders if the paper saw peer review at all.

This is serious stuff -- completely out of the chat room league. It is the kind of thing that results in lawsuits and destruction of careers. Where is the response?

[balrog666]

Science was birthed from Christianity, it belongs to believers, we are just taking it back now.

Um, no, it wasn't. It appears that your warped view of history matches your personality. Weren't you previously known as the disease "ALS"?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Chat room league? What about my review (posted as soon as possible after waiting about an hour for the download)? The whole Meyer article was a species of specious logic deserving no specie.

[Texas Songwriter]

I am inadequet to distill my love for my wife and children to a number. If you can do this for love and justice, please let all on this thread know how this is to be done. I cannot explain love and justice by micrgenetic abberations selected for and expressed outwardly phenotypically. So please, educate me on this matter, as this assignment is above my pay grade. I did used to tell my little children, when I held my arms out as far I could and tell them,as I strained to increase that distance, I would say "I love you more than this". But that was not the analytical application you seek. I will be listening to your lecture very carefully. I don't want to miss this.

[js1138]

4 or five billion, probably. Try again.

If you wish to impute a divine cause for the observed history of the earth and the life on it, that's fine with me. It is not science and should not be taught as science, but I have no problem with believing it.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

The link to the response was at post #192. Did you bother to click on the LINK? Here is some of the text:

Publication process for the Meyer paper

The Meyer paper was submitted to the Proceedings in early 2004. Since systematics and evolutionary theory are among my primary areas of interest and expertise (as mentioned above, I hold two PhDs in different aspects of evolutionary biology), and there was no associate editor with equivalent qualifications, I took direct editorial responsibility for the paper. As discussed above, the Council of the BSW had given me, the managing editor, the discretion to decide how a paper was to be reviewed and edited as well as the final decision on whether it would be published. I had previously chosen on several occasions to handle certain papers directly and that was accepted as a normal practice by everyone involved with the Proceedings. (This was confirmed even after the controversy over the Meyer paper arose. In a description of a Council meeting called to discuss the controversy, President Dr. McDiarmid told me by email, "The question came up as to why you didn't pass the ms [manuscript] on to an associate editor and several examples were mentioned of past editorial activities where a manuscript was dealt with directly by the editor and did not go to an associate editor and no one seemed to be bothered...")

Nevertheless, recognizing the potentially controversial nature of the paper, I consulted with a colleague about whether it should be published. This person is a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History, a member of the Council, and someone whose judgment I respect. I thought it was important to double-check my view as to the wisdom of publishing the Meyer paper. We discussed the Meyer paper during at least three meetings, including one soon after the receipt of the paper, before it was sent out for review.

After the initial positive conversation with my Council member colleague, I sent the paper out for review to four experts. Three reviewers were willing to review the paper; all are experts in relevant aspects of evolutionary and molecular biology and hold full-time faculty positions in major research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, another at a major North American public university, a third on a well-known overseas research faculty. There was substantial feedback from reviewers to the author, resulting in significant changes to the paper. The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments or his conclusion but all found the paper meritorious and concluded that it warranted publication. The reviewers felt that the issues raised by Meyer were worthy of scientific debate. I too disagreed with many aspects of the Meyer paper but I agreed with their overall assessment and accepted the paper for publication. Thus, four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication.

From original receipt to publication the processing, reviewing, revising, and editing of the Meyer paper took about six months. (By contrast, I once helped colleagues at the Museum rush out a paper on a topic upon which they feared that others were about to preempt them in about four weeks from receipt of the paper to publication.) Even after the paper was completely finished, due to other more pressing matters it sat on my desk for more than two weeks before I finally made time to send it to the printer. Thus, any allegations that I somehow rushed the publication process are patently false. http://www.rsternberg.net/

=============

Now, I REALLY have to get some work done, but I felt it necessary to respond due to the way you guys are attempting to trash a decent man's name on a public forum. Just when I think you guys have hit rock-bottom, you go lower.

Peace.

[Right in Wisconsin]

Exactly my point. If the TOE doesn't care who started life, why should they care (like you admit they do not) whether ID is taught or not? It does not circumvent the TOE's basic assumptions, correct? Why all the stink? Bottom line, it has to be the origin of life that is at the crux of the dispute. And both evolution and ID are theories for that creation of life, and as such, both are religious philosophies.

[VadeRetro]

You have helped me to discover my love of ... paragraphs. Well, Merry Christmas!

[js1138]

What about my review ...

No criticising your review, but did you charge that a specific named editor of a respected journal passed off an article as peer reviewed when it was not? You might have speculated, but did you say it outright? (I don't know the answer to this question.) Basically what is being charged here is a conspiracy to slip an article past the peer review process in such a way that it could be presented as peer reviewed. Since the article is now being cited in court cases, the fraud is not trivial. If the charge is true it will destroy the career of the editor and possibly ruin the magazine.

[Shryke]

Why all the stink?

The only stink arises when ID'ers want ID taught in a science class. It's absolutely not science. Teach ID all day long - where it should be taught - in a religion class.

And both evolution and ID are theories for that creation of life, and as such, both are religious philosophies.

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. See? No matter how many times you keep repeating that lie, I can refute it, easily. Just grab a dictionary.

[Ichneumon]

Well, just read through this thread. The atheists didn't like the cultist charge thrown back at 'em I see.

"Atheists"? I take it you're ignorant of the fact that the majority of Americans who accept evolution are Christians...

Little do you know how little you know...

I see they deny their faith in evolution.

Yes, because an acceptance of evolution is *not* based on "faith". It's based on knowledge, understanding, and evidence.

They don't believe in evolution? Yeah, right.

Not in the same senses that a Christian "believes in" God, a man "believes in" his wife, or a child "believes in" Santa Claus, no.

The following essay should help to clarify the issue for you:

Do You Believe in Evolution?
by Bob Riggins

Introduction

In my part of the country I get asked that a lot by students. That's partly because of the part of the country I'm in (South Texas). Fundamentalism-creationism is endemic around here, and somehow that noisy minority has convinced the indifferent majority that to be a Christian of any sort, one must reject evolution. Ironically, even many of my Catholic students think their church is "against evolution" (it isn't). Somehow Protestant fundamentalism has "converted" them, at least on this article of faith, without their even realizing it. Perhaps their own church has not strongly, positively, and publicly stated its position to parishioners.

Perhaps it's also because, as an English teacher in a science-oriented magnet school, I often include science fiction novels and, at least once a year, a science nonfiction book as assigned readings. Inevitably, there will be something (probably a lot of things) in those books that rub the creationists the wrong way, since to maintain their structure of beliefs they have had to reject the facts established in practically all areas of science, from astronomy through nuclear physics to geology and biochemistry. Perhaps they've actually never encountered a teacher who openly "believes in" evolution (a very real possibility around here). Now that's scary! No wonder on those international comparisons our students score worse than kids in Lower Slobovia or wherever.

The Question

But the problem I want to deal with here is how to answer that question: Do you believe in evolution? It's easy to say "Yes!" but that's not right. The problem is that the question itself is wrong. It's like the old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question: either a yes or a no gives the wrong impression.

I certainly don't want to say no, since that would create an entirely wrong impression. But answering yes isn't quite right, either. The problem is the phrase "believe in," just as the "have you stopped" is the trap in the earlier example.

Concentrate on the believe in: no, I don't believe in evolution. Think of how that phrase is often applied. Little kids believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. We often judge their maturity by finding out which things they still believe in and which they have "grown out of" ("Aren't you a little old to still believe in the Tooth Fairy?"). The phrase believe in in common parlance seems to mean to take something literally for which there is little or no objective evidence. You must believe in the Easter Bunny, because you've never seen the real one yourself, there's nothing he has done that couldn't be simply explained by ordinary phenomena (parental trickery), and there's no objective, physical, replicable (in other words, scientific) evidence that he's real. If you had those last things, then you wouldn't have to believe in the Easter Bunny, you would know he was real.

Knowing vs. Believing

That's the difference: you absolutely know some things are real, through your own experience or other kinds of really solid proof. That's knowledge, not belief. Other things you believe in. You want them to be true. It would be nice if they were true. It's probably fun to believe in them. But you don't have solid, irrefutable (scientific) proof, so you have to keep believing in them, rather than knowing them (or you could just throw them out entirely, like most of us over six have done with Santa Claus). If you had that kind of evidence, then the folks whose job it is to find out the physical facts about the world (scientists) would know them too, and belief wouldn't be required. A mark of the immaturity of small children is that they haven't learned this distinction yet. About the only proof they may demand is what someone older tells them, or what they see on TV. Note also that you can't trust the believer. He may, of course, say he "knows" his favorite belief is true, and may trot out what to him is adequate proof ("But I saw Santa in the store, and look at all the stuff he brought, and on the news they saw him on the radar, and... and..."). Or he may be one of those incredibly shallow people whose answer amounts to, "I don't know why, I just believe it," or the ludicrous contradiction, "I just know it's true."

There's another common meaning for "believe in," as in "Do you believe in democracy?" "Do you believe in the American Dream?" "Do you believe in abortion under certain circumstances?" "Do you believe in the justice of our cause?" Here the meaning of "believe in" seems to be something like "trust," or "think it's probably best," or "are willing to go along with." That doesn't seem to be what someone is getting at when he asks me if I believe in evolution, or at least that's not how I take the question. So in that sense, no, I don't believe in evolution: it's not a matter of personal opinion, or philosophy, or a gray area where one must decide what might be best overall.

But back to the real distinction: no, I don't believe in evolution--I know that it's real. It doesn't require believing in. And I don't "just know it," like the vacuous air-head. I have all the objective evidence I need for real knowledge . The reality of evolution having occurred and continuing to occur is every bit as strongly established as the knowledge that the Earth is round, that germs cause disease, that electrons exist, or that the speed of light is ~300,000 kilometers/second. If anything, I have more daily-life experience to show me evolution happening than I have for those other things. I can see that offspring aren't identical to their parents. I have seen new varieties of plants and animals developed within my own lifetime. I live in an area where boll weevils often win the evolutionary race to develop resistance to pesticides. I can easily catch a case of (newly evolved) resistant staphylococcus, which might very well kill me. I have seen and touched and personally found the fossils of the now-extinct ancestors of living creatures.

Evidence of Evolution Is Stronger Than Evidence of Electrons

As a matter of fact, I have more down-to-earth proof of the reality of evolution than I have of the other things mentioned above, which I know to be real. I will never see an electron. How would I ever come close to accurately measuring the speed of light? My chances of ever getting far enough away from Earth to actually see for myself that it is round are practically nil; and I don't have the equipment or the expertise to ever really prove for myself that a particular breed of bacteria actually causes a particular disease. Then don't I just take those things "on faith"? Don't I believe in them, rather than actually knowing them? No. As a society, we have hired specialists to find out these kinds of things. We've done everything we can to assure that they are highly trained, that they are objective (not letting their philosophies or beliefs get in the way), that they are honest, and that their answers are true (they constantly check on each other, compete, and repeat experiments to make sure the results are real). We've set up a system (science) in which wrong answers are quickly thrown out, all answers are tested over and over in every imaginable way, right answers get righter all the time (e.g., relativity doesn't "disprove" Newtonian mechanics, it just improves on it; punctuated equilibrium doesn't "disprove" Darwinian evolution, it just clarifies it further), and the best way to make a name for yourself is to disprove an older idea (with enough proof of your own to stand up to the toughest tests). And finally, that system works far better than any other way mankind has ever tried for finding out about the physical world.

So what science knows, I know. They are my agents for finding out things I can't find out for myself. Science knows (and tells me) that there are electrons and what the speed of light is. I would be foolish to reject that knowledge. Science also tells me, with just as much assurance, that living things have evolved. I know that knowledge has been tested, tried, experimented with, and applied to real situations, and has proven its "fitness" by growing stronger through 150 years of severe testing. I would be foolish to reject that knowledge.

So no, I don't believe in evolution; I know that it has happened and still does. As a matter of fact, I should probably feel insulted. If you asked me if I believe the Earth is round, that would be insulting. Do you think I could be so ignorant as to believe it is flat? The same goes for evolution. Do you think I would reject the last two centuries of scientific progress and the evidence of my own eyes? I should be thoroughly offended.

I would have thought higher of Freepers than this. If what I see on this thread represents anywhere near a consensus of Freepers, we've had it is all I can say.

Why do you say "we've had it" if a lot of Freepers understand science?

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.

Or they're not "atheists" as you presume, or they're conservatives, or...

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.

I find "your opinion" to be fatuous and wrong.

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

Scientific Freepers? The horrors!

[js1138]

Have you bothered to look at #192?

[VadeRetro]

BSW Repudiates Meyer.

ID Paper Continues to Attract Scrutiny.