Skip to comments.Judge tosses out evolution lawsuit
Posted on 09/13/2007 6:02:12 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit against the Roseville Joint Union High School District that was filed by a Granite Bay man unhappy with how evolution was being taught in his children's school.
The father, Larry Caldwell, spent much of 2003 and 2004 trying to persuade the Roseville high school district to alter its biology curriculum to include arguments against evolution. After many meetings and discussions about his proposals, the school board rejected them.
Caldwell then sued the district, four administrators and two school board members, alleging they had violated his constitutional rights in the process of considering his proposals. School district officials denied Caldwell access to certain meetings and discriminated against him for being Christian, Caldwell claimed.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Don’t ya just love it.
Getting God out of school...case always accepted, even appeals are accepted up to the supreme court.
Getting God into school..case rejected out of hand!
No court agenda here. /s
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070901/fob1.asp reports that bacteria, etc. pick up genes from animals they infect, then pass them along to other bacteria, fungi, plants, and animals.
Darwin's idea that we inherit genes strictly from our mummseys and daddys just went down the old tubleroni~~~!!!!
Mutation is no longer required ~ just cruise along and your line of critter will be provided all the genes it could probably use ~
This is very good news for those offended by the subset theory of "sexual selection" since sex becomes nothing more than a way of passing around genes acquired from your coldsores (among other things)!
Now, let some federal judge chew on that awhile.
So, if I was bitten by a radioactive spider, I REALLY could become Spiderman!
Leftists, enviro-whacko’s, evolutionists all exhibit the same characteristics. I expect that it’s because they know in their hearts that they’re full of horse apples.
They would include any argument if the Creationist could actually come up with a legitimate one.*
* - And No, "I can't/won't understand evolution therefore it must be Jesus" is not a legitimate scientific argument
Bring in creationism into a Public School is like bringing in a religious belief. Won’t this be a separation of church and state issue too? Creationism is a simple course to take. God created earth and all living things, end of course, everyone gets an A. The problem as I see it is whether or not religion should be taught in Public Schools and would this be a foot in the door? If you let in one religious belief you will have to let in the others too.
Good One ...
This just exemplifies the sort of pathetic, scared-to-face-opposition mentality that typifies modern evolutionists. When you get right down to it, evolutionists are really little more than small-minded bureaucrat types who rely upon "everybody believes it!" to make the arguments that their "science" can't.
UH OH!!! That done it!! You just put your foot it. Better get into your asbestos suit real quick: the evo brigade is on it's way.
I don’t know what a “tubleroni” is, but the Origin of Species was published before the concept of genes was developed. While it appears that genetic material can be passed between species in ways not previously identified, this has long been theorized as one way for genetic complexity to develop. In fact, the process of phagocytosis and the consequent sharing of genetic material is quite consistent with evolutionary theory and (you won’t like this) may have a great deal to do with simple bacteria in the primordial ooze sprouting legs, moving onto land, and inventing god.
You'd think he would have just pulled his kids out of public skrewl and started home schooling them, rather than spend 4 years suing the school district.
Then he could teach them as much creationist claptrap as he likes.
If evolution didn't predict this, then evolution isn't scientific.
I know you won't like this, but after the fact story-telling isn't science, it's philosophy.
I want it brought up to date if it's going to be taught in the public schools. Those kids have got to know all the various ways they, or their offspring (well, they thought it was their kid didn't they?) can acquire genes and change in remarkable ways.
One poster above noted that this means the method whereby Spiderman became Spiderman cannot now be ruled out ~ obviously that's something that needs to be taught ~ no sense having those kids think of Spiderman's spare gene pool being unscientific nonsense ~ and we can now explain why Princess Ann actually does resemble her horse!!!
Uh oh, now you've done it.
Be prepared to defend yourself, monkey worshiper!
In any case, I'm in the camp that holds that life comes from elsewhere, usually with a full array of genes that enable it to perform the task of terraforming the target.
They're still coming in too!
This latest piece suggests strongly that "life" is able to acquire the genes it wants from the available store.
Unless it is also your fond belief that if zoology hasn’t predicted every new animal found , zoology is not scientific, your agument is claptrap.
The concept of the change of allele frequency in descendant populations says nothing about how the alleles got there.
I don’t think I understand what you are trying to say. I think the double negative in the first statement is confusing me. So you are saying, “If evolution did predict this, then evolution is scientific.” I have to agree with you there. And “after the fact story telling” certainly describes religion, but I don’t know what it has to do with science.
We just lost the concept of “decendant populations” ~ it’s a “group thing” now ~ and includes those bugs living in your armpits!
im amused as to why so many folks get their dander up when a person wants to have both sides of an issue dicussed in schools for their children.
literature classes discuss shakespeare, did he or didnt he write his own work.
economics courses, or history discuss the pros and cons of decisions made by world leaders past and present...
but, when folks, who are not trying to push religious views and merely want to point out the faults of evolutionism, all the sudden, they are criticized and censored without any fair hearing of their side....
Sorry about the creative pre-caffeine spelling of “descendant” ... one day I’ll try waking up before posting.
This is not quite as new as it looks, but still pretty high on the nifty scale. Keep in mind that mitochondria and chloroplasts include genomes swallowed whole.
Yeah and I'm a weatherman because I predict that the weather is going to change.
Evolution didn't predict this, therefore it isn't scientific.
"And after the fact story telling certainly describes religion, but I dont know what it has to do with science."
Nothing, and that's what you were doing when you said, "In fact, the process of phagocytosis and the consequent sharing of genetic material is quite consistent with evolutionary theory and (you wont like this) may have a great deal to do with simple bacteria in the primordial ooze sprouting legs, moving onto land, and inventing god."
I think since evolution is a theory, arguments against it should be heard.
Otherwise it seems that evolution is being sold like a product (let the buyer beware), rather than a legitimate theory being taught to fresh young minds at an academic institution, in a land of freedom.
I would suggest that that is a new path to mutation, rather than “mutation is not needed”.
For what it is worth, the mitochondrions are essentially a separate organism inside us, giving us the ability to perform aerobic respiration, (see Kreb’s Cycle).
Further research in the influence of parasites on hosts would be profitable. I think of parasites as an organism which has a virtual body, once implanted.
Imagine that. The human body is “Second Life” to its parasites.
“. . . Kent Hovind tactics . . . “
No, this is NOT mutation ~
Bringing Humanism into the a public school is bringing in a religious belief, but the Humanist Manifestos I & II are the religion of the government school apparatus nation wide.
Chromosones mutate. Genes are the result. a collection of bases is either is a gene, or it is not. There is a lot of junk on a chromosone that has no purpose that we can discern. Waiting for a mutation to turn into a butterfly...
Here's a thought for you ~ just because something can be mutated doesn't mean it needs to be mutated, particularly if you can just pick up a perfectly good, but more adequate version, elsewhere.
Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. But since evolution is a scientific theory, those arguments against it must be rooted in science.
Any contradictory evidence must be discussed, just as soon as any is found. Any competing scientific theories must get equal time, just as soon as any are developed.
Students should also be reminded (or, more likely, told) that "scientific theory" does not mean "guess," it means "model extrapolated from and supported by evidence." Students are never too young to learn that words mean things.
Or, the other way around ~ ever think of that one?
Absolutely. genes need to be big so that they can assemble functional T-RNA via z-DNA. Further, they can be diffuse, spread out with sub-assemblies or precursors put together off the main strand.
The synthesis of hemoglobin shows that, as do the various genetic diseases grouped under the heading of porphria.
The other way around is called “children” in suburbia.
Seriously false assertion, one made by leftists continually.
No, we don't have to let "all others in too". Our country and our culture are based on the Judaeo-Christian belief system, and 84% of the people claim to be Christians. There is nothing wrong with teaching the values of the American culture and the belief system on which it is based.
“Porphyria” I believe ~ 86 different varieties ~ definitely some instability in that code.
Kent Hovind is generally a sensationalist kind of guy, and it’s cost him in the long run. He’s also currently serving a prison sentence for tax fraud.
BTW, genes are so huge they can obviously accommodate all the machinery needed to do all sorts of stuff. They must necessarily possess more than one type of super computer ~ including, no doubt, several devoted to quantum processing techniques, or maybe even processing in dimensions we don’t even know aobut yet.
It's not. It's a classification schema.
A classification schema for you pertaining to...?
That concept has been around at least 35-40 years at least. You are confusing DNA transposition with inheritance. The real question is whether a donor DNA transfer, and organisms that have the ability to do that are more able to survive to produce more offspring.
If it is a useful trait they create more babies and the species continues. If it is a detrimental trait then there are fewer babies and the species becomes extinct.
The problem with these fringe unthoughtout lawsuits is that they come across as kooks. They might as well be arguining that “native bongo drum baning” makes solar eclipses go away rather than orbital rotation movements and that it should be taught as “equal” to science.
Classification as in this goes in this pigeonhole, that goes in that pigeonhole which is next to this pigeonhole because it has some resemblances while clearly different overall. Taxonomy. Interesting that in biological species the resemblances are closer as the samples are older, which gives a kind of systematic appearance to the schema.
And by scholars you mean evolutionist scientists, not all scientists, like say, any group that may believe through their studies and tests that there are alternate theories. But, I suppose that cant be, because a creationist just simply doesnt understand evolution, no matter what their reason for disbelief in the theory.
It is called a virus.
Humans are infected with virus all the time and if their bodies are able to fight off the change they have an immunity. (chicken pox, measels)
Scientists have long discussed using viruses to deliver medical treatments.
It is all a question of survivability of the species. Eventually a new model is so different from the old model that the can no longer produce new offsprint together. (think Windows XP computers vs CPM computers. There is no 5 1/4 inch disk drive in computers today)
There is room for faith in science. In fact it is probably required given the really terrible working condidtions and drudgery. However there is no room for ONLY faith instead of science. (then agricultural schools could never teach animal husbandry)
Well just to be clear, I am posting about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution that is currently being taught in public schools, which is often represented in schema.
It is a schema. Or, rather, a collection of schema. There are at least five different speculations on the nature of evolution and that is just for biological evolution, possibly the least cited form of evolution. That would assume evolution among species is actually a valid classification method, which would be hard to decide based on observation of existing evolved species and a handful of surviving fossils, but noting family resemblances is hard to deny so we will continue to do so.
history discuss the pros and cons of decisions made by world leaders past and present.
Yeah, but they don’t discuss whether historical events accepted as fact by historians maybe didn’t happen. If they did - and many historical events taught as fact can be questioned - there would never be time to cover anything. So, for example, for many years we taught that Columbus discovered America; when facts and historical consensus determined otherwise, then we introduced the new theories. Same deal with theories in chemistry, eceonomics, etc....Theories are always in question, can always be tested, but alternate theories should rise to a minimum level of consensus by scholars before they are taught.
ME: but, the opportunities to offer viewpoints or counter points is silenced, and dismissed apriori, unlike the other examples i have sited, where someone can get up in a class and say this OR THAT, about the subject, and get a fair shake, so to speak.
many scientists in all fields have doubts about evolutionism, and even that cant be brought up. why is that?
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.