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 ...
Given that the judges in the Supreme Court are globalist puppet master vetted and all helping remove Christianity and any interest or support in the true God of Creation from the planet as much as possible in behalf of the satanic world government . . .
It's not at all surprising that the court would support the Godless religious cult of science as it has been fashioned into.
It has been demonstrated that Christianity was foundationally responsible for the Enlightenment because we construed reality built up and designed by an orderly God such that order COULD BE DISCOVERED.
#####The Muslims are strict Creationists however#####
True! And so were most Europeans back in the day when Europeans were psychologically capable of fighting Muslims. :-)
WELL SAID.
Um, okay.
ABSOLUTELY.
Though 5-7 paragraphs would have made it much more readable. Especially by aging eyes.
Actually, you are wrong about that.
I worked in charge of one of two collections of extreme left to extreme right publications etc. 1965-69. It was well documented that even the Communist expression of the puppet masters' work calculated very specifically over 45-50 years or so ago to undermine this aspect of our value system and to especially do it beginning in our universities and then all our schools. They have succeeded.
It's been documented in the KGB's own files that they spent 10's of millions of US DOLLARS doing it.
You don't have to believe that. But it's the truth.
dark age residents BELIEVED in evolution... spontaneous generation of life from inert matter...
that's where they thought maggots came from...
and evolutionists are just as flat-earth stupid as their dark age counterparts who drilled holes in peoples heads to let the demons out, when they had migraines....
nothing more than high priests of a failing, exposed and diminishing religion of fabrications, extrapolations and double talk.
absurd.
the fool has said in his heart, there IS no God.
and though you grind a fool to powder with a mortar and pestle, yet will his foolishness NOT depart.
it's pointless to argue with foolishness driven people...
If they cannot see the living God, carved using his words, in the structure of a pine cone or a maple leaf, there is no hope convincing them with human words... written on a website blogg board...
RussP wrote:
The evolutioninsts base their theory on probabilities, yet they do no probabilistic calculation whatsoever.
Doctor Stochastic Replied:
Of course this is just another Creationist lie. A simple examination of: R Durrett, R Durrett, "Probability models for DNA sequence evolution" and the references therein refute the claim entirely.
RussP replies:
To be technically correct, perhaps I should have qualified my claim by saying that I have not come across any probability calculations in my reading on evolution, which includes admittedly only two or three pro-evolution books on the subject, including "The Blind Watchmaker."
I am not a biologist, so I obviously don't have time to read all the literature out there in that field (I barely have time to scratch the surface in my own field of aerospace engineering). However, I assumed, perhaps naively, that Dawkins would cover the major points, which did not include any probabilities. If I need to read some obscure biological journal to get the basics of evolution, then I'd say your side isn't doing a very good job.
Having said all that, let me ask you a question. Of all mutations that occur, roughly what percentage do you think are harmful, and what percentage do you think are helpful to the organism? And do those percentages vary by species, etc.? I think this is a key point, and I would really like to know the answer. Thanks.
Huh?
Science is not a religion.
Correct. Evolution, however is not science. It is nothing less than a naturalistic philosophy with tenets of faith, and the kind of faith that the secularists confess is at odds with reason: Belief in things for which there is zero evidence or even contrary evidence.
That is not what Christians mean by faith, mind you, but what secularists have redefined faith to be (for their own selfish purposes). One of the primary tenets of the naturalistic religion is the non-existence of miracles. A miracle would be an event that breaks a natural law. Abiogenesis, for example would be one of those miracles that violates the law of biogenesis. But miracles cannot happen so abiogenesis cannot be true. But abiogenesis must have happened because there are no miracles......
That takes great "faith" and blind leap into the realm of non-reason.
So if I read a couple of pop-science books about aeroplanes and don't see any reference to probability calculations about component-failure its sensible for me to conclude that it doesn't go on..... sheesh; at least we now know the true extent of your knowledge of that which you reject.
As it happens evolutionary biologists including Dawkins have done a ton of probabilistic math and I am fairly sure that he *does* refer to it in BW, though I don't have a copy to hand to check with. I think you haven't been looking very hard (ignorance being the centrepiece of your position)
Thatcherite wrote:
So if I read a couple of pop-science books about aeroplanes and don't see any reference to probability calculations about component-failure its sensible for me to conclude that it doesn't go on..... sheesh; at least we now know the true extent of your knowledge of that which you reject.
RussP replies:
Hmmm... I hear from many evolutionists that Dawkins is a brilliant writer and his books are classics. Now, if I read a "couple of pop-science books" about "aeroplanes" and found no discussion of wing lift, drag, or thrust, I would not exactly consider them classics. Probability is as fundamental to *random* mutations and natural selection as lift, drag, and thrust are to "aeroplanes."
If I had time to research the matter, I'd be willing to bet that evolutionists bought off on evolution long before any of them did any probability calculations. Hell, several evolutionists in this very thread have asserted that they are unnecessary.
"(ignorance being the centrepiece of your position)"
Oh, I see. So I've only read six or seven books on evolution, including two or three in favor of evolution, but "ignorance is the centerpiece of my position." Well, thanks a lot!
Do you have any idea how offensive, arrogant, and pathetic your tactics are? I'll bet you don't have a friggin' clue.
From memory, Dawkins does mention how rare miscopyings are, and he states that the chance of a miscopying being beneficial is low, and he states that work has been done that shows that probabilistically this is still enough to account for the evolutionary record.
From memory Dennett also mentions these points in "Darwins Dangerous Idea"
The theory of evolution is considered science because (a) it matches the observed facts (b) it makes numerous successful predictions (c) numerous possible falsifications exist but none has been demonstrated (d) no simpler natural theory has been that satisfies (a) and (b) and (c) has been proposed.
A ton of truth in your post.
THX.
The politics of the religion of science; the religion of evolution; the religion of naturalism
can easily be documented--though it is far below a priority for me to do it. Others have done it well. I believe Josh McDowell is one of them.
To claim that a political movment in these sphere's proves the objective soundness of so called 'science' is among the worst semantics, imho.
Evolution theory relies on a puportedly random model of one single spontaneous origin for life. So far as I know, no living thing exists without DNA.
I often remind the eco-fascist veggie nazis who say humans weren't "designed" or "meant" to eat meat, that inherent in their statement is the premise there is a designer or some sacred meaning to human existence.
What a lot of people forget when they promote such NONSENSE is the Aristotelian categorical model...
DNA is the singularity that evolutionists rely upon by belief to support their theory. This is no different than the Big Bang - - just another Immaculate Conception...
What a lot of people forget when they promote such NONSENSE is the Aristotelian categorical model and scientific method...
I often remind the eco-fascist veggie nazis who say humans weren't "designed" or "meant" to eat meat, that inherent in their statement is the premise there is a designer or some sacred meaning to human existence. Logic often diffuses theory into a foundation of belief...
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.