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 ...
And more: Naive Theories of Motion
I hope that's not an exclusive .or.. He's the second fer shure.
Naive placemarker.
Look harder. I've been lurking on and posting to these threads for five years. A few names have changed, but one year looks pretty much like another.
I have two purposes in following these threads, neither of which is to convince the opposition.
The first is to convince the hundreds of lurkers that there are educated conservatives. The second is, that by posting myself, I am forced to learn things and sharpen my skills. Posting stupid things or badly worded arguments exposes you to a meat ax.
I can think of two or three posters who consider ID to be a useful scientific paradigm. They do not fall into the YEC camp.
Wolfram seems to have given some ammunition to ID by proposing that complex things can evolve from simple programs in the absence of selection. This is one of those ideas like string theory that might prove fruitfil in the coming century.
Well I don't know about you but when I read a book on evolution, the phrases "seems to" or "would seem that" comes up alot. As far as pointing out a mechanism, you base your statement on an assertion that evolution is scientifically provable. To date I have seen no experiment that proved that evolution (macro-evolution actually occurs.
Chihuahuas and great danes are not, practically speaking, interfertile. You can concoct devices using stepladders and so on, but a male chihuahua can't reach a female great Dane, no matter how receptive a posture she adopts, and I don't even like to think about a male great Dane and a female chihuahua. And even if you inseminate a female chihuahua with a male great Dane, I have grave doubts about the course of the last few weeks of gestation.
However, chihuahuas and pekingese are interfertile, as are pekingese and cocker spaniels, as are cocker spaniiels and standard poodles, as are standard poodles and labrador retrievers, as are labradors and great Danes.
Please give me a quantitative discription of "macro-evolution." What exactly has to take place to distinguish micro from macro?
See post #422. :-)
Most people have no idea what the principles of conservation of momentum and center of mass mean.
Excellent point. I find that a most concise demonstration of why ID isn't and can never be a scientific theory. It's consistent with all outcomes and consequently can never be disproved nor confirmed.
Sigh! I need to write longer posts! No one has "applaused" me lately! LOL!
"Evolution will be in trouble just as soon as someone publishes an alternative history that is consistent with geology, physics, chemistry, and the accumulated facts of biology."
And this will be a scientific paper published by real scientists, not IDers. Regardless, I think genetics pretty much ensures the basic tenets of evolution will never be overturned.
"That would put them within mainstream science "
If they actually practiced science. I'm sure that microbiologists are very sensitive to any suspicious anomalies in evolution. I know I am in my field. If something does not work the way it si supposed to, we find out pretty quick.
"-- mutations, copying, insertions, etc"
Did you happen to see my post earlier where I described the project I did at work that used a genetic algorithm to minimize a mathematical function? I'll try to summarize, it was really cool. Actually I won't, I tried to but it got really long and complicated. Suffice to say that we applied mutations, copying and insertions to a mathematical problem. We used individuals and populations. Fitness levels were determined by how close they come to the reference model after passing through the funcion to be minimized. The algortihm is called 'pikaia,' they have a good website with graphical examples and lots of explanations on how it works. We customized this algorithm for our problem. Sorry for rambling here... my point is that, this algorithm actually worked better than the two deterministic mathematical algorithms we used as well! Only for really complex problem though, simple ones took too long to solve for pikaia. Even the fact that it worked at all was impressive. I found it very impressive that the mechanisms of a biological process could be used so efficiently to solve a mathematical problem.
Fifty-One percent thought the ball would continue on a curved path ...
My experience with animal breeding is limited to having a neighbor borrow my male siamese cat. (For his female cat, lest the mind wander.)
Initial results were extraordinarily loud and presumably painful for one or the other.
I'm sorry to say that although there were offspring from the mating, there are no living descendents.
So, let's see, you admit you misspoke, but then accuse me for not knowing what you mistated. Impressive. How do you know that I am one of "you people"? And..why are you so angry?
Ditto for the many millions of years of supposed evolution and the alleged millions of accumulating random mutations.
No one can prove they didn't occur, and the theory can be modified forever to explain any anomaly.
And so we go round and round!
Macro-evolution. Evolution from one species into another new species.
Wow!
1) The orbit of a planet is an ellipse with the sun at one of the foci.
2) The line drawn between a planet and the sun sweep out equal areas in equal times.
3) The square of the periods of the planets is proportional to the cubes of their mean distance from the sun.
So what is that telling us? In a nutshell, all orbits are ellipses, the close to the body you are orbiting the faster you go (e.g. if you have a highly elliptical orbit the satellite or planet’s velocity will increase as it approaches the object being orbited and decrease as it get further away).
These laws not only apply to planets and satellites, but to any orbiting body.
Note: Geek alert #1:
For an orbiting body this is not entirely correct. It turns out that both bodies end up orbiting a common center of mass of the two-body system. However, for satellites, the mass of the Earth is so much greater than the mass of the satellite, the effective center of mass is the center of the Earth.
Newton’s three laws (and law of gravitation):
1) The first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. (Commonly known as inertia)
2) The second law states that force is equal to the change in momentum (MV) per change in time. (For a constant mass, force equals mass times acceleration F=ma)
3) The third law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, if an object exerts a force on another object, a resulting equal force is exerted back on the original object.
Newton’s law of gravitation states that any two bodies attract one another with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
Note: Geek alert #2:
Actual observed positions did not quite match the predictions under classical Newtonian physics. Albert Einstein later solved this discrepancy with his “General Theory of Relativity”. There are four classical “tests” that cemented General Relativity:
1. In November of 1919, using a solar eclipse, experimental verification of his theory was performed by measuring the apparent change in a stars position due to the bending of the light buy the sun’s gravity.
2. The changing orientation of the major axis or Mercury not exactly matching classical mechanics.
3. Gravitational Redshift
4. Gravitational Time Dilation
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.