Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Religious Cult of Evolution Fights Back
PostItNews.com ^

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: aclu; creation; crevolist; cults; evolution; intelligentdesign; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 1,401-1,419 next last
To: stands2reason

LOL -check your mail ;)


401 posted on 12/23/2004 5:39:46 AM PST by general_re ("What's plausible to you is unimportant." - D'man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

And meteorology is having trouble with that gap about the origin of the atmosphere. So what?


402 posted on 12/23/2004 5:44:19 AM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Nice discussion and history here .
403 posted on 12/23/2004 5:55:07 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason; Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...; Alacarte

The real problem with the argument that established scientists have such a vested interest in evolution that they won't ever publish any data that tends to refute evolution (besides the fact that it is a paranoid conspiracy theory, of course) is that there is always an infusion of new blood in science. These younger scientists do not have any vested interest in the truth of evolution. In fact, probably the fastest way to fame and riches for a young biologist today would be to provide conclusive evidence AGAINST evolution. Most of the really major and well-remembered advances in science are ones that overturned well established ideas. Einstein would never have become famous, for example, if his main work was some confirmation of Newton's laws of motion. The fact that his main work overturned these laws (BTW, the older scientists in Einstein's time had a vested interest in the truth of these laws as well) is the main reason that Einstein is remembered. Einstein also won a Nobel prize for ideas about light that flew in the face of the prevailing wave theory of light. (He explained the photoelectric effect by theorizing that light is composed of particle-like quanta) If there is serious evidence against evolution, it will see the light of day. Some young, brilliant biologist will bring it to light.


404 posted on 12/23/2004 6:10:35 AM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
As already noted, there is a great deal of arbitrariness in the assignment of taxonomic categories. But this example seems to be "flexible," not on empirical grounds, but on quite subjective ones. Or so it seems to me. FWIW

As a rule of thumb, I assume when a large number of very smart people with a great deal of practical expertise in the field have struggled with an idea for a couple of hundred years, and are still worrying about it, but haven't discarded it, I assume:

Then again, I'm routinely accused of arrogance.

Speciation is a human categorization, and as most such it's fuzzy at the boundaries. That doesn't means it's wrong, subjective, or a mere tool of eevil eevilutionists. Species were not dreamt up to confound creationists; most biologists have too much contempt for creationists to bother.

What most bothers me about these threads is the anti-intellectualist streak they manifest among conservatives. I hate it when we act like the stupid party

405 posted on 12/23/2004 6:21:29 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
I really need to spend more time on controversial threads... then I'd be able to witness some of these bannings!

Goodseed wasn't banned on one of these threads, although the banning was related. She was banned for getting into a flame war with JimRob and accusing him of being a leftwing heathen, amother things. (Some poetic license taken here)

406 posted on 12/23/2004 6:23:23 AM PST by js1138 (D*mn, I Missed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
As already noted, there is a great deal of arbitrariness in the assignment of taxonomic categories. But this example seems to be "flexible," not on empirical grounds, but on quite subjective ones. Or so it seems to me. FWIW

As a rule of thumb, I assume when a large number of very smart people with a great deal of practical expertise in the field have struggled with an idea for a couple of hundred years, and are still worrying about it, but haven't discarded it, I assume:

Then again, I'm routinely accused of arrogance.

Speciation is a human categorization, and as most such it's fuzzy at the boundaries. That doesn't means it's wrong, subjective, or a mere tool of eevil eevilutionists. Species were not dreamt up to confound creationists; most biologists have too much contempt for creationists to bother.

What most bothers me about these threads is the anti-intellectualist streak they manifest among conservatives. I hate it when we act like the stupid party

By the way, that's a general observation, not directed at Betty Boop, who tends to fall less into this trap than most of us do.

407 posted on 12/23/2004 6:24:43 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Or what, you'll tell mommy? I will call you the vilest thing I know..."Liberal!"


408 posted on 12/23/2004 6:27:16 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut

I personally have never understood the "...In His Image" objections. In His Image, to me, means sharing imperfectly in the most important qualities of God. Do people really believe that the most important quality of God is His physical appearance? It seems to me that His most important qualities are His intelligence, goodness, mercy, and rightiousness. These also happen to be the qualities that most distinguish us from the rest of the animals (I am not saying that other animals don't exhibit these, but rather that no other animal exhibits ALL of them to the degree that humans do). If you look at it this way, there's no problem with the idea that God created the universe with all of the laws of nature and then allowed things to pretty much take care of themselves from there. (I am donning my asbestos suit, as I am sure a flaming is coming from the fundamentalists)


409 posted on 12/23/2004 6:30:00 AM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: stremba
I would claim that ID by the nature of the idea itself posits a deity.

Like nearly everything else on these threads, this has ben pointed out hundreds of times.

The ID argument works something like this: when you are court arguing ID as science, no deity is mentioned or claimed; in fact the need for a deity is explicitly denied. Meanwhile, back on FR, anyone not believing in ID is an atheist.

410 posted on 12/23/2004 6:34:45 AM PST by js1138 (D*mn, I Missed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: ItCanHappenToYou
Not that you guys use evolution more than a blind man uses his cane is a windstorm. It was evolutionists that built an entire caveman family display out of the tooth of a pig.

At least Biblical stories are verified time after time by archeology, while the evidence for evolution grows weaker as more REAL scientists have the guts to speak up in the repressive Darwin church.
411 posted on 12/23/2004 6:37:05 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: Alacarte

Please cite your source that 100% of the scientists support evolution.


412 posted on 12/23/2004 6:42:59 AM PST by Right in Wisconsin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

evolution is a theory, gravity is a law


413 posted on 12/23/2004 6:43:54 AM PST by Right in Wisconsin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
Not that you guys use evolution more than a blind man uses his cane is a windstorm. It was evolutionists that built an entire caveman family display out of the tooth of a pig.

You going to retract or apologize for the lie you posted about Alan Feduccia?

414 posted on 12/23/2004 6:45:03 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
OK, where does ToE begin? Single cell? Amino Acids? Frog? You guys propose a process and talk endlessly of the process, but you never EXPLICITLY state where that process begins? It is like someone talking about Fords and Chevys and how they run and their horsepower but never mentioning Detroit.

Sorry but ToE infers that life ultimately came from the inorganic by natural processes. Even current textbooks in secondary education still show pictures, or give the hypothesis of life climbing heriocially out of the muck.

You evolutionists started this game, you don't get to change the definitions and the rules in the 4th quarter.
415 posted on 12/23/2004 6:46:58 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: stremba
If there is serious evidence against evolution, it will see the light of day. Some young, brilliant biologist will bring it to light.

The basic thing wrong with the view that scientist conspire to protect evolution is that theories are not overturned by arguments and review articles. Theories are overturned by the slow accretion of ill-fitting data -- the kind that ID would provide if ID scientists actually did research instead of writing review articles.

It is ill-fitting data that makes careers more often than blinding insights.

416 posted on 12/23/2004 6:48:09 AM PST by js1138 (D*mn, I Missed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: Marysecretary

I guess we shouldn't be teaching the Theory of Gravity, either.


417 posted on 12/23/2004 6:50:53 AM PST by Quick1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

One whose real God is Karl Marx and who may be a homosexual himself.


418 posted on 12/23/2004 6:51:48 AM PST by WashingtonSource (Freedom is not free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Right in Wisconsin
Please cite your source that 100% of the scientists support evolution.

You read that from this??

Scientists from disciplines from genomics to paleontology rely heavily on evolution and support it 100%.

419 posted on 12/23/2004 6:52:02 AM PST by js1138 (D*mn, I Missed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: ItCanHappenToYou

Isn't the belief in superstitions, that is, an unproven theory, going back to the dark ages? If we are to move forward, should we not have honest debate?


420 posted on 12/23/2004 6:53:43 AM PST by Right in Wisconsin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 1,401-1,419 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson