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 ...
RussP wrote:
Dawkins and the evolutionists subscribe to a theory of evolution based on probabilities...
VadeRetro replied:
Darwin never breathed a sigh about probabilities. I'm not addressing Dawkins because he is not a historically important theorist, just a popularizer.
You are wrong about the history, wrong about the theory. Funny, all the other creationists can be counted on for the same level of accuracy.
RussP replies:
Darwin is irrelevant because he knew nothing about genes and mutations. Dawkins is relevant because he is a hero of many evolutionists. He may not have come up with any major ideas himself, but he sure espouses them. Unless you contend that he misrepresents the Neo-Darwinian theory, I don't understand your rationale for dismissing him.
The NDT is based on *random* mutations. The main idea is that natural selection builds complex forms based on those *random* mutations. If you don't understand the relationship between randomness, complexity, and probability, then you can't possibly understand the problem of objectively testing the NDT. Or perhaps you don't think it needs to be tested. I can't decipher your actual position here.
"You are wrong about the history, wrong about the theory. Funny, all the other evolutionists can be counted on for the same level of accuracy."
Can you point to further info on variations within the rate of mutations? The balance between rate of environmental change and rate of adaptation isn't something I've seen too much about...
How many hours did you give him to read, learn, and assimilate the information?
I fell asleep about 100 pages into Origin of Species, just as I did (on a totally different topic) reading A Journal of the Plague Years. (Defoe, wasn't it?)
You can't reasonably expect all laypeople to become experts in every subject which requires expertise--it is necessary to either form uninformed opinions, or to rely on popularizers, just to get through the day...
I've never read Dawkins, so I have no opionions either way on him. Do you consider him to give a reasonably accurate, reasonably cogent description for the layman?
"...he escapes what would be
illegitimacy
by the grace of a fortunate vowel."
Take a bow, Isaac!
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the thinking behind Hitler's creating of a master race. So what if he believed in Creationist, those two concepts are not diametrically opposed. Having a background in biology has no relevance on his belief of survival of the fittest, or the treating of human beings as nothing more than animals. The man was a crazed murderer, who knows where his belief in Darwinism started.
Not all biology teachers are Hitler, in fact, none are so to compare them makes no sense. You have such little respect for biology teachers to think that they could be swayed to exterminate 6 million plus people based on their study of evolution.
The only spewing of nonsense is coming from you and your asinine attempt to defend a theory, no matter what.
"I've never read Dawkins, so I have no opionions either way on him. Do you consider him to give a reasonably accurate, reasonably cogent description for the layman?"
I'm obviously no fan of Dawkins, but I read his book "The Blind Watchmaker" a few years ago just to get his take. I think he does make the theory of evolution fairly clear for the layperson. I was not particularly impressed with his reasoning, but this book is regarded as a popular classic.
Then please read Spetner's book "Not By Chance!" to get the opposing point of view. I think Spetner does a good job of debunking Dawkins.
By the way, Dawkins also wrote another book called "The Selfish Gene." I've never read that book, but I have skimmed through it and I was quite amazed at his apparent thesis. Have you heard the joke that a chicken is an egg's way of producing another egg? Well, Dawkins apparently believes that humans are essentially nothing more than complicated mechanisms used by our DNA to reproduce and propogate itself. And that's not a joke. I think Dawkins honestly believes that. I can't even imagine how deranged I'd have to become to believe something like that.
Indeed, that there was a beginning - regardless of cosmology (multi-verse, big bang, cyclic, ekpyrotic, imaginary time, etc.) - requires an "uncaused cause". As Jastrow said, that there was a beginning is the most theological statement to come out of modern science.
<sigh> That's an analogy. Dawkins is trying to explain why he believes the gene is what's being selected, more than the individual, population, or species.
There's a book from a couple years ago about how certain plants (apples, corn, marijuana, & a couple others I think) "found" ways to "entice" humans to make more of their kind. From the reviews I read it sounded like it was probably a fun way to explore the history & evolution of said plants.
But ascribing intention to genes, species, or evolution itself only takes us so far as an analogy until it starts to introduce misconceptions of its own.
"Disputing evolution is saying that every scientists in the life sciences is wrong. Scientists from disciplines from genomics to paleontology rely heavily on evolution and support it 100%."
I say go ahead and purge all public schools of all remnants of "creationism," intelligent design, etc. But don't do it until you give me a voucher to send my child to a school of my choice. Don't foist your close-mindedness on me and my children by forcing me to pay for your public schools.
And don't browbeat me with your so-called "science" that does not tolerate any dissenting views. Just because you are convinced that you are right about evolution, that does not give you the right to force your views on me through the power of the state.
You don't know nearly as much as you think you know. And no, not "every" scientist in the life sciences buys the purely naturalistic view of evolution, despite your arrogant and delusional claim. Many of them even go the church.
You can thank science popularizers for this. I cringe when I see writers ascribing intentions and foresight to evolutionary processes. It leads to justified ridicule.
My dear lady, it appears that I have failed to communicate successfully. Therefore, permit me an opportunity to try it once more.
Back up in post 732 you said: Hitler was a strong believer in evolution, so much so that he endeavored to weed out the weak to make a master race.
I endeavored to point out that being "a strong believer in evolution" does not turn one into a monster like Hitler. In the very next post, I said:
Where was the biology training in Hitler's background? He wanted to be an artist, or an architect. He knew nothing of Darwin's work.Your response (post 786) is:
I'm not sure that you've responded to my point, perhaps I didn't express it clearly -- but no matter. I had a stronger point to make:
There are over 9,000 biology teachers in the US. All of them exposed to the allegedly destructive teachings of Darwin. How many of them are mass murderers? Tyrants? Nazis? Can you name even one? Certainly Darwin wasn't much of a criminal, and he was certainly a "Darwinist."I really think that is persuasive, even dispositive of the "Hitler-Darwinism" issue. From what I presented, it should be obvious to the rational mind that Darwinism doesn't result in criminal behavior.
But your response to that was:
Not all biology teachers are Hitler, in fact, none are so to compare them makes no sense. You have such little respect for biology teachers to think that they could be swayed to exterminate 6 million plus people based on their study of evolution.
Dear lady, never has a posting of mine been so badly misunderstood. If this issue is at all interesting to you, and I assume it is because you raised the Hitler matter, I respectfully suggest that you review our recent correspondence. Perhaps my poor attempt at persuasion will be more successful with another reading.
Dawkins presents the case for evolution (and deconstructs various anti-evolutionist mantras) very well. That's the good news.
He is bitterly antireligious, which plays into the hands of anyone who sees evolution as part of an international atheist cabal. To that extent he is baggage, which is why every creationist drapes him about the neck of every evolutionist on these threads. Thus is The Real Science argued.
You are assuming that no one has ever linked such material to him before. To be fair, it could be true in this case for all I specifically remember.
I have been posting refutations of creo nonsense on this forum since early 1999. The regulars just come back again with the same crap, trolling for suckers and feigning amnesia of previous threads. They are regularly bombarded with detailed refutations of everything they say every time they go out recruiting. They not only don't accept this material, they somehow do a great imitation of being unfamiliar with same.
Response to actual details of posted material--let us exclude such activities as counting, underlining, or bolding "maybe" and "could have" occurrences--being such a rarity, it is interesting to listen for any signs in the answering material that the person is reading and comprehending. So often there is none.
The situation is not symmetrical, although the other side often argues that it's just the Holy Warriors of one religion versus the Holy Warriors of another. Most of the long-time science defenders on these threads are familiar with a fair body of creationist work. No Morton's Demon there!
If creation versus evolution really were an issue in science, I wouldn't be as interested in the controversy or so appalled by Creation Science. Science quietly accepted evolution long ago, sometime in the late 19th century. Supposedly Darwin lived long enough (d. 1881) to see much of the shift in professional opinion after 1859. It is the aberrant nature of the evolution deniers that is like the bloody accident scene you can't look at and can't NOT look at.
There is no genes-molecules-and-cosmic-rays consensus model appropriate for any kind of probability analysis right now. By the time we have things worked out to that level, we won't need the probability analysis. It'll be over and people will have moved on to whatever deeper questions beckon.
No one can possibly know how many micro-organisms are on earth at any given time, but the number must be incredible. Ditto for the number of reproductive events involving them daily. So how long has it been since they evolved into a multi-cellular creature that reproduces sexually? I won't even ask what the transition between reproduction by splitting and sexual reproduction would look like.
But I will ask how survival of the fittest could lead micro-organisms, which obviously are very fit to survive as they're still here in massive numbers after all these years, to evolve into huge & environmentally vulnerable creatures that always seem ripe for extinction (elephants, whales, dinosaurs).
Why would survival of the fittest replace cell fission, a comparatively simple way for an organism to produce a few billion offspring in 48 hours, with complicated mating & courtship rituals between opposite sexes who have to locate one another, and long gestation periods, which may, over many months, lead to a single birth that then requires a long nurturing period.
What is more survivable than micro-organisms? They can even mutate (through loss of information) to evade man's attempts to deliberately wipe them out.
Isn't it true that a large percentage of the scientists who support evolution also believe it was guided by divine intervention? I could swear I saw a poll in one of these threads that showed that to be the case.
If it is, doesn't that mean a large percentage of the scientific community rejects the idea that evolution is a wholly naturalistic process? The vast majority may believe evolution happened, but if, let's say, 40% believe it couldn't have happened if God hadn't caused it to happen, would that 40% be engaging in science as you define it?
I'm not sure. I know that most scientists believe in following the evidence where it goes.
Creationists occasionally make noises about being ultimately willing to let God make the world any way he wants to. If only they would actually do that, there wouldn't be any problem.
I can't deal with all of your post. However, as I read what you ask, you seem to be wondering this: Why, if uni-cellular life is so successful, did the multi-celled forms develop?
The key here is that you're asking "why," but evolution only tries to explain "how." Your question is therefore outside of the field of biology.
Please don't imagine that the microbes somehow made a decision to go multi-celled. The process of evolution isn't like a business plan. It only requires that a species -- once it exists, and however many cells it's made of -- successfully survives and reproduces.
So the only answer I can give you is that we multi-celled creatures aren't doing all that badly, and for that reason we're still here. Maybe if we all sat down and compared our situation to that of the microbes, we'd stop reproducing and commit suicide, thus returning the world to the microbes. But I doubt that it will happen.
It's a variation off of the "Why are there still apes?" argument. We still have apes. We still have reptiles. We still have sponges. We still have occasional opportunistic colonials like slime molds that can go it alone or join up as needed.
The selection pressures are different from place to place and time to time. One subpopulation gets by with a conservative strategy, another rides a successful innovation into an uncertain future. No, one doesn't have to wipe the other one out. There are still cockroaches, too.
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.