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 ...
You can repeat that lie over and over, but it's not true. You may as well claim that gravitational theory infers that gravity comes from bananas.
A little history here:
Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation
“Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects.”
F=Gm1m2/r2
Where:
F equals the gravitational force between two objects
M1 equals the mass of the first object
M2 equals the mass of the second object
R equals the distance between the objects
G equals the universal constant of gravitation = (6.6726 )* 10-11 N*m2/kg2 (which is still being refined and tested today)
(BTW this is a simple form of the equation and is only applied to point sources. Usually it is expressed as a vector equation)
Even though it works well for most practical purposes, this formulation has problems.
A few of the problems are:
It shows the change is gravitational force is transmitted instantaneously (Violates C), assumes an absolute space and time (this contradicts Special Relativity), etc.
Enter Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity
In 1915 Einstein developed a new theory of gravity called General Relativity.
A number of experiments showed this theory explained some of the problems with the classical Newtonian model. However, this theory like all others is still being explored and tested.
So, YES, the term “Gravitational Theory” is quite valid.
So... is your screen name a comment on how you drive?
Dan
(c;
Why not teach evolution -- as in randomness is responsible for life and all bio-diversity -- in a mythology or religion class?
It's true that a lot of people make that inference, but that would be a hypothesis rather than a theory. It's not really all that difficult to separate the concept of behavior from the concept of origin. One can easily discuss the features of automobiles without reference to the origin of iron.
I notice a lot of people are willing to discuss the attributes and behavior of God without explaining his origin.
Someone put it all into song once:
Nuclear fusion makes stars to shine.
Tropisms ma-ake the i-ivy twine.
Ray-ayleigh scattering makes skies so blue.
Testicular hormones are why I love youuu!
LOL. I see posts every day on FR lambasting the self-correction by religion. I suppose the value of reformation depends on which side of the street you work.
You have to understand, Betty. When I point out that, with all the distortions and fallacies it contains, Meyer's paper might as well be a creationist pamphlet tacked up on a corkboard in a laundromat, I think I'm saying something bad about it.
Then I realize that I'm talking to someone whose response to such a charge would be "Well? So?"
Actually, my response would have been a short commentary, followed by a link to the rebuttal of the P-Thumb's pathetic analysis of the paper, written by people with scientific credentials, Ph.D's, even. Who should I believe? Vade, or actual scientists? Hmmmm...
One Long Bluff: The Gishlick, Matzke and Elsberry Response to Stephen Meyer's Peer-Reviewed Article
One long bluff...indeed.
From the paper:
First, their supposed rebuttal begins with -- and is characterized throughout by -- a condescending tone and personal attacks on Meyer's motives.
Hmmm...sounds strangely familiar.
When I stated explicitly that there is a parallel between love in a dog and love in a human, he dropped out of the conversation.
Therein lies the rub. Excellent point.
we are having an honest debate. There are very infprmedpople here , having an honest debate on the science.
I see it more from the viewpoint of the action of the human mind upon itself, is all.
Your cited article has no actual content. It does not, for example, claim that that the Meyer article was peer-reviewed. Why is that? You would thing that would think that would be a priority.
What it does include is the following statement:
"We will show in the coming installments that GME’s list of citations constitutes a bluff."
That was two and a half months ago. We're waiting for the first installment in the real article, the one with content.
10. You can call "punctuated equilibrium" a scientific theory, then explain why scientific evidence for it cannot be found.
9. When a student tries to raise critical scientific questions of evolution in science class, you tell him he can only ask them in a course on comparative religions.
8. To show transitional forms in school textbooks, you just hire an artist to invent some. (eg. Jazz Man by The Far Side)
7. You can ignore Phillip Johnson's book "Defeating Darwinism - By Opening Minds" and write your own: "Defeating Creation & Intelligent Design - By Closing Minds".
6. You can refer to books by atheists Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins as "Holy Writ".
5. If in need of spare cash, rob a bank and call it "natural selection".
4. You get to cross out the word "God" and print "Hydrogen" at Genesis 1:1.
3. You get to use quotation marks around the word "scientists" when writing about creationists who received their Ph.D.'s from major universities.
2. To convince the public that "Lucy" [Australopithecus afarensis] was one of man's ancestors, you fashion perfectly formed human hands and feet (and a pensive look) on a statue of a primate.
And the number one cool thing about being an evolutionist is:
1. You don't have to make any distinction between fact and wild speculation.
Cheers!
You must have not read my link on Shubi's thread. But then you just believe what you want to believe...why, just almost like me!
The head of the snake has been cut off by irreducible complexity and information theory, we're just watching it squirm right now.
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.