CRITIQUE OF EVOLUTION RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL EST. OF RELIGION

Pastabagel.com ^ | 1/14/2005 | Pastabagel

[Without Barbarians]

From the article about this news story:

My personal feelings aside, this latest frenzy over evolution is schools is equally dumb. Here’s what the sticker says:

Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

This is factually correct. Evolution is a theory. The bones are facts, the concept that explains them and relates bones from different times is the theory. Evolution isn’t a fact any more than the law of gravity, which has freqently been revised and rewritten. That’s okay, because pretty much all of the rest of science is theory too.

Frankly, the sticker should replace “Evolution is a theory, not a fact,” with “Every explanation you will ever hear about anything is a theory and not a fact". Because that’s the truth.

And all you idiots with Darwin stickers on the back of your car should know that the modern theory of evolution has discarded nearly all of Darwin’s orginal theories. So get that stupid thing off your car before I take an arc welder to it.

I can’t really understand how the judge views that sticker as an establishment of religion. In fact, in suggesting that “the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism” the judge makes a monumental error. Creationism is not an alternate theory, because it isn’t a theory. Is creationism verifiable? Falsifiable? What form could any evidence that creationism is wrong take? Creationism is religion - a belief system that exists in the absence of evidence, and always relies on at least one leap of faith....

There's more there, but you get the gist.

[Shryke]

And all you idiots with Darwin stickers on the back of your car should know that the modern theory of evolution has discarded nearly all of Darwin’s orginal theories

Haha. Nothing more ironic than a moron proving he's a moron in his own op-ed. Ping to PH.

[frog_jerk_2004]

“Every explanation you will ever hear about anything is a theory and not a fact". Because that’s the truth.

You're slipping into dangerous territory with that...

[frog_jerk_2004]

“Every explanation you will ever hear about anything is a theory and not a fact". Because that’s the truth.

Contradiction?

[Servant of the 9]

Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.

Yes, and Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding things falling.

In Science, any interpretation of data is a Theory, not a Law or a fact.

A Hypothesis is a wild assed guess that might become a Theory after sufficient testing.

Unfortunately, general usage has confused the terms fact, Law, Theory and Hypothesis.

So9

[narby]

Nothing more ironic than a moron proving he's a moron in his own op-ed.

Since it's illogical that someone would deliberatly prove themselves wrong while trying to make a point, I humbly suggest that you have misunderstood him.

[Calvarys_Soldier]

"Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."


This of course ruins the Left's attempt to teach evolution as the only truth. Not only that, but to teach Atheistic evolution. Not that I subscribe to the belief, but many Christians believe that evolution is controlled by God, known as Theistic Evolution.


"And all you idiots with Darwin stickers on the back of your car should know that the modern theory of evolution has discarded nearly all of Darwin’s original theories."


Actually, there is a great deal of validity to this statement. Darwin did not set out to explain the state of the world apart from God. Rather, he set out to explain HOW God put the world in motion and moved it forward. The idea of evolution without God came shortly after Darwin.

Actually, the science of proving evolution was incredibly poor. If you read the history of the study of evolution, you will find that many atheists heard the theory, declared it to be true, and then proceeded to perform studies to prove that it was true. Good science would require the possibility of disproving the theory, which these early studies did not have!

Even if you can truthfully argue that further studies of evolution have been without such faults (which I am certain you cannot), the theory is still poorly constructed. It is as if I were build a strong, brick house on a cardboard foundation. The house is still a poor one due to the poor foundation.


"I can’t really understand how the judge views that sticker as an establishment of religion. In fact, in suggesting that “the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism” the judge makes a monumental error."


Typical liberal response to anyone questioning their brilliance.


"Creationism is not an alternate theory, because it isn’t a theory. Is creationism verifiable? Falsifiable? What form could any evidence that creationism is wrong take? Creationism is religion - a belief system that exists in the absence of evidence, and always relies on at least one leap of faith."


Except for the last sentence about a leap of faith, this statement about Creationism is absolutely false. Each plant, animal, human, inanimate molecule, basically all things on earth, are built from cells. Each cell is completely unique from each other cell on the planet and in the universe. Each cell contains DNA strands which are infinitesimally more complicated than mankind's ability to understand it. Such a complicated and intelligent design logically suggests an Intelligent Designer. In fact, it requires a much, much larger leap of faith to believe that the intelligent design of our world was an accident than it does to believe that there is an Intelligent Designer! Both Creationism and Theistic Evolution (God-guided Evolution) are actually far more logical than the idea that our brilliantly designed world occurred out of an accidental explosion.

[Armando Guerra]

"Faith" is an unquestioning belief, while "theory" is a proposed explanation. In making evolution an unquestionable doctrine the judge has elevated it from a theory to a matter of faith and, as such, has violated the establishment clause.

[plain talk]

Well said article. Dittos.

[PatrickHenry]

This is sooooo dumb. I donno if I should ping the list. Lemme know if the thread heats up.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Gravity is not a theory. It is observable. Hence, it can be classified as a law.

No one has ever observed the materialistic evolution of any species. However, it cannot be classified as a law. Hence, it is merely a theory.

[Servant of the 9]

Gravity is not a theory. It is observable. Hence, it can be classified as a law.

No.
That objects fall when dropped is observable.
Gravity is the theory about why it happens and what controls the rate of atraction.
There is Newtonian Gravity, Relativistic Gravity, and a number of Quantum Gravities.

No one has ever observed the materialistic evolution of any species. However, it cannot be classified as a law. Hence, it is merely a theory.

Evolution has been observed countless times in the fossil record.
That it does happen is fact.
Why it happens is Theory.
There have been many, Darwinian Evolution, Lysenkoism, Punctuated Equilibrium Evolution.

Theories in Science are constantly being fine tuned, each more accurate than the prior one, asymptopically aproaching truth.

So9

[Bigh4u2]

What 'establishment clause'?

In the Constitution?

How did a 'Judge' violate a clause that only 'Congress' could propose?

Judges do not make laws.

They interpret them.

And this Judge is wrong!

[nmh]

So the only "faith" you can have is that of "evolution".

LOL!

Evidence doesn't support evolution and their "theories" stand legitimate science on it's head but that's okay to put your "faith" in that.

LOL!

Looks like this guy is an ignorant bigot and is quite anti Christian. Flame away!

[Bigh4u2]

" Evolution has been observed countless times in the fossil record."

It has?

You mean they have recorded proof that a certain species of animal (or plant) evolved (or changed) from one state to another?

Or is it they 'theorize' that that is what happened based upon a 'new' species emerging and an 'old' species disappearing around the same time?

[Shryke]

Since it's illogical that someone would deliberately prove themselves wrong while trying to make a point, I humbly suggest that you have misunderstood him.

Certainly possible. However, I did not claim he did this intentionally.

[RonF]

Actually, there's a difference between a hypothesis and a wild-assed guess. A hypothesis is testable. A WAG isn't. If the hypothesis passes the test, then it's a theory. If it fails, it's simply a failed hypothesis and not worthy of further consideration, unless it can be modified and re-tested.

[Servant of the 9]

You mean they have recorded proof that a certain species of animal (or plant) evolved (or changed) from one state to another?

Or is it they 'theorize' that that is what happened based upon a 'new' species emerging and an 'old' species disappearing around the same time?

We have never observed the creation of a new species by God either. For that theory we have only one old book of dubious provenance.

Most of the critical measurements of gravity, such as the Transit of Mercury are inferential as well. There are periods when observation is not possible, so the old Mercury could disintigrate and a new Mercury be formed while no one was looking.
Those who grasp at straws like that are too emotionally invested in their particular point of view to make rational decisions.

So9

[Bigh4u2]

You didn't answer a single question I posed!

Try staying on topic next time.

I believe it was 'evolution'.

Not 'religion' or 'gravity'.

Neither of which I mentioned.