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 ...
The definition of species is "flexible" because the concept is man-made and doesn't match reality. This has been recognized for over a century.
The problem is that he doesn't want to believe that it is true, and as such the evidence is irrelevant. Those who have a dogmatic reason to trash evolution will always find a way to pooh-pooh the evidence.
Quite right. He doesn't want to believe and you know why?
He wants - needs - to believe he is the son of a God.
Pure and simple.
It boils down to basic developmental biology and psychology, time after time.
Still, that's about the only argument Creationists have in this discussion. That, and "Well, that's not what the Bible says!".
It's need based belief, nothing more.
He needs to believe he's a child of God. It's an identity need, such as many like him have.
When the Reverend Jim "Ford Motor Credit" Jones drank the Kool Aid, several of his flock followed suit.
RE: this "standard definition": Are we talking about a moving goal post here? I mean, when did this definition get to be standardized? Just wondering.... Info please!!!
Phyical sciences are "solid science"(at least more so than biological), whereas evolutionary theory is a guessamate. Your comparison doesn't work.
1) Guestimate.
2) Evidently you can't read a simple sentence. Try again:
"The bomb was not built with religious belief and people's superstitions, but with hard core math."
Comparison: beliefs v. facts.
It's not rocket science, dude.
"Wrong, dead wrong. To hold to a ID origen is definitely based upon a logical analysis of what is observed. "
Observe: ORIGIN.
. Wow. Must have taken you all night to think that up. I'm just devastated.
I guess it is your policy to not respond to those who do not ping you in the first place? Or, is it those who point out another's lack of knowledge on a particular topic, as was the post you are responding to?
BTW, if you are just being sarcastic and funny, and I missed it, please disregard the preceeding, with all apologies. It's been a long day...
Oh, wait a minute! I'm talking to a YEC, here.
Please forgive me for intruding on a not-so-private conversation here, VR. But trashing one's opponent is no way to win an argument, before any fair judge. IMHO FWIW
Instead, may one propose a better way: Try to engage in a rational debate of the issues in dispute in good faith. One hopes this sort of thing is still possible.
Digressing a bit here, Prof.Re your comment about Trojans.
Nebraska Corn Huskers, before that Nebraska Bug Eaters.
Trojans= USC.
Took me all night to find that out. Had to ask a jock friend.
You are a naughty boy. ;D
In the immortal words of Bert Lance: "It's like being called ugly by a frog."
That's very charming, BB, as I would expect from you. We do try. Really we do. But eventually, it becomes apparent that some of the posters around here don't qualify for such treatment. I usually ignore them, but sometimes it's difficult.
To your knowledge, has ANY creationist here EVER said, "Sorry, I did not know that. I was wrong to say that evolution covers the origin of life...(or whatever else was proven wrong)"?
I want to know if any have ever shown a shred of honesty and inquisitiveness, or even simple contrition.
The slurs fly fast from them, as does the whining when they feel "attacked". I wonder if any are courteous enough to admit their mistakes when proven?
Don't worry about me, though; I take it all with a grain of salt. I'm not going to let a few grumpy old men dissuade me, nor would I expect anyone else to leave here because of their tirades and ad homs.
If I spend less time here, it will be to spend more time with the family and to get some more golfing in. :)
Have a great holiday and a Merry Christmas!
Seems to me that the "secret" is at least one side of the debate treating the other side with respect no matter what has been said.
Not really. But many, when presented with information that clearly contradicts their creationist views, just go away. I don't know if they ever question their sources of information. The hard-core ... well, you know.
We all remember the frenzied events of last year, A-Girl. You certainly know what it's like when one side has no intention of behaving respectfully. And you certainly handle it better than most. But you understand that it can be difficult.
Ask some contemporary science professor moron at the local college if they think the "Big Bang" theory is an admission the universe is an immaculate conception.
I did this once at a MIRA lecture given by some pompous professor from MIT at the Q&A period after...
"Professor, is advocacy of the big bang theory by the scientific community an inadvertent admission the Universe is an Immaculate Conception?"
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.