Creationism evolves into court fight

York County is about to become the next battlefront in the long-running struggle over the teaching of evolution.

A battery of national civil liberties groups plans to join today with a knot of Dover Area School District parents to file a federal lawsuit aimed at blocking the Dover Area School Board's decision to teach "intelligent design" in a ninth-grade biology course.






http://pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1103019790236140.xml

But ID will fail there just as it has failed everywhere else.

I'm not anti-religion at all. It's just my belief that one's religion and how they worship is a personal thing.

Hope this makes sense...Whatever one believes, they can choose to pass it along to their children (or not) through participation in one's church, synagogue, etc. That is entirely appropriate. It is NOT appropriate to be taught to a diverse, captive audience of children in a public, taxpayer supported school system. JMHO.

Conservatives have found the next wedge issue. Sciene vs. Religion. With over half of all Americans polled not believing in Evolution I can see this one rolling right into '08.

They should all prove it by exterminating all believers and then having their God create them again.

would have any traction.

where Flying Crow pissed and the world was born.

An Alien Nerd in Deep Space Nine , for instance...theres thousands of creation stories in human history....thousands and thousands..trying to get people to actually educate themselves about mythology is the key...

TNG - the Romulans, Cardassians, Humans, etc. were all running around the Alpha Quadrent to unlock this mystery which turned out to be our common biological heritage.

And doesn't one cult group believe in ID, that it was aliens of a more advanced culture who oversaw our development?

Some sort of cult that believes aliens created life on earth and such. They're the same group that said they successfully cloned a human, but wouldn't give the identity of the mother, wouldn't let any tests be done...and the media gave it plenty of air time.


http://www.rael.org/

that they also teach Rael's idea. Hell, maybe a few dozen other crackpot views too.

wrestling, and poof the earth was created.

The hindus actually got the timescales right.

In Brazil Brahma is a brand of beer. Must've been a hell of a beer binge!

My company has some staffers from Singapore and Western Europe touring our American facilities, and they have just been reduced to tears by this freakshow that is Bush America, they watch the evening news like it is SNL!

And the guys from Singapore are pretty fucking conservative to begin with, but they can not for the life of themselves understand the shit-storm over stem cells. "It's Frozen Goo, its sacred as the peas in the freezer" as one of them so aptly pointed out.

And ofcourse, the guys and girls from the UK were all eagar to whip out their wallets and show us their Darwin banknotes.

Its as though the North American business process tours have become one of those bus tours through Ashbuery during the hippie days.

. . . the moronajority has spoken, and what they wish is no less than a return to the dark ages. Anyone who is progressive is left with a choice. We may remain silent and hope the situation will right itself eventually, or we can establish contact among ourselves before the darkness completely falls, and hope to preserve some knowledge for future, more deserving, generations.

And with the technology being developed today that edges ever closer to outright interception of our very thoughts, anyone who opts for the latter course had better be highly adept at controlling their thoughts when they're around modern technology.

Can anyone else see another round of witch trials coming, with the evidence being "thoughts against God" recorded by a machine?

Cheers

BH

oops, been there, done that like 100 years ago. How far we've come.

NOT!

the Consciousness arose from "Inert Matter".

Science Fundies are as bad as Religious Fundies.

Both are totally closed minded and myopic.

You'd think people might learn something after thousands of posts :argh:...
well, have fun forkboy..thanks for fighting the good fight :hug:

Dinosaur consciousness, is extinction also part of intelligent design?

Or is intelligent design just another way of explaining the 'neat' way evolution works?

It is not limited to single persons or a single entity.

...what do you do for a living?

Art Criticism.

I studied Physics & Astronomy in University.

My Math was barely proficient excpet for Geometry.

The theory of evolution does not, in itself, include a position on abiogenesis. The religious fundies in this article are proposing to use "intelligent design" as a textbook challenge to the theory of evolution, not the various theories of abiogenesis which are still in their nascient stages. Apples and oranges.

You might consider that, before you get all caught up in the other arguments your comment will instigate.

I suggest you write this down on a 3x5 index card for future reference:
evolution = speciation from common ancestors
abiogenesis = life from "inert matter"

to meet their own limited beliefs.

And most Fundies don't use Intelligent Design to question Evolution happening.

They use it to explain HOW and WHY it happens.

So thanks for explanation... but it misses the point entirely.

Both sides are acting like idiots. The fundies act that way out of habit. The pro-Darwinists are acting that way apparently out of a foolish attempt to insist that Darwinism equals atheism.

What's happening is that:
a) the pro-Darwin camp almost exclusively denies the possibility of an intelligent force behind creation (there are some exceptions--notably Brown Univ. Professor Kenneth Miller)
while
b) the pro-"Intelligent Design" camp that virtually completely supports the absurdity of biblical Creation as set out in Genesis.

Who would have thought that an otherwise intelligent man like Dr. Michael Behe would permit his theory to be co opted by fundamentalists, and then--in a desperate attempt for public recognition--compromise all his academic credentials by succumbing to their insistence that mythology is history.

In a more rational world, ID's central premise--that the universe is so complex it must have been created by some higher power--would be at least accepted as a possibility by the pro-Darwinists. After all, this assertion in no way contradicts the scientific fact of Darwinian evolution.

This lawsuit is a dangerous thing for the country. By rejecting ID completely, the pro-Darwinists open themselves for a judicial interpretation that ID's central premise, described above, is accurate, is supported by the vast majority of the American public, and is also supported by such scientific luminaries as Spinoza, Franklin, Einstein, and now even Anthony Flew.

That would have the incidental effect of validating Creationism and mandating its teaching as science--which would be a horrifying outcome.

"Higher Power" is translated as "Ominpotent BEING" as in a Personage.

It seems to escape both camps that "Higher Power" is a part of Nature and the Universe the same way Gravity or Aerodynamics are.

Wrote the following to a nuclear physicist friend who wants me to help them do PR against the fundies' invasion of school districts:

I believe our side is taking a dangerous tack by essentially equating Darwinism with atheism or agnosticism.

True, Behe has virtually thrown in with the fundamentalists. He and his theory thus deserve all the condemnation we can heap upon them.

But ID's central premise is supported by the vast majority of the public (plus many eminent scientists), namely that the universe is so complex it must be the creation of a higher form of intelligence (e.g. than humans). We must not permit Behe and the fundies to own that assertion in the court of public opinion.

Our side must grasp the fact that just as it is a non sequitur for them to claim that assertion proves the validity of a Genesis creation, so it is an equally unsupportable non sequitur for us to say Darwinian science proves a non-teleological universe.

The danger of our position is severe, as you point out. I believe that by stretching our facts as we are doing, we give an opening for the court to rule the other way. We must not join the ID forces in creating the public impression that Darwinian theory is incompatible with an intelligent creator. We must not allow them to own the possibility of a god.

It surely would not harm our cause if science teachers were permitted to add--in their teaching of evolution--the fact that some believe evolution is compatible with the idea of an intelligent creator of the universe.

We must not rest our argument on atheism. A far stronger argument is that the bible is only a primitive tribal attempt to explain the universe; that the bible's god is a fairy tale, but that Darwinian science does not conflict with more rational interpretations of a higher creative force.

Failing that, we risk getting on the wrong side of this case and of public opinion generally.

If this comes down to a popularity contest between the God of America's true believers and the atheism of many of its scientists, guess who wins.

That's my view, and I suppose the reason I've been a bit reluctant to get involved is that I'm not sure how heretical such an outlook is to those on our side of this thing.


This is is very positive reply:

Your view is not heretical. Indeed, it is held by the vast majority of scientists and educators who support science and the theory of evolution. It is the other side which equates evolution and atheism, and continues to vigorously attack theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller from Brown. Despite a semi-infinite set of rebuttals, they continue to make this claim because of its political and religious value. I have brought almost the entire Christian and Jewish communities in (state 1) and (state 2) to the table to support evolution, including the... (state) Council of Churches, representing about 600,000 members.

A small number of evolutionists are brazen atheists. The most outspoken and famous is Richard Dawkins. But you will be pleased to know that almost the entire rest of the nation recognizes that equating evolution with atheism is a losing proposition.

To say it is insults the scientific process in such a way that it perverts ALL scientific advancement. It is not DISPROVABLE! It does not rely on facts and observation BEFORE theory! It is not REPRODUCABLE, nor does it rely on previous theories to build upon(think Newton before Einstien). It is not a scientific theory, nor even hypothesis, its philosophy at best, myth at worst. Most important of all, it does not belong in a SCIENCE classroom!

Ask one of these fundies;

So the whole evolution process is too complicated to have been by chance? There had to have been "intelligent" design? Then following your very twisted and non-scientific logic then the designer must himself (Herself? Itself?) have been even more complicated. Who or what designed him? And since his designer must be even more complicated......

Every carnival has its bearded lady. I guess in the world carnival, the bearded lady is US. By "intelligent" (HAH!) "design."

But it is fun to observe the pretzel logic they twist themselves with, trying to come up with fancy, noble-sounding names for pure knuckle-dragging. "Intelligent design." "Creation SCIENCE." I LOVE that one, in particular. "Creation SCIENCE" my ass.

what one gentleman said, says it all:

"I have no problem teaching creationism, but not as a science," one of those parents, Joel Leib of Dover Twp., said yesterday. "I learned my creation in Sunday school, and I learned my evolution in high school."

And that's the way it should be. Fundies should not be trying to push what they believe in the school classroom. If they do...then we - the reality based of this country - should also teach evolution in the church class room.

Don't we have just as much right to teach on their ground as they in ours.

Seems only fair.

:eyes:

because they can't get that kind of 'draw' at church---so they want to bring the theory to where the kids are compelled to attend by law, at least until they are 16.

To me, they are circumventing the parents who may not agree with their religious views or don't attend church to get ahold of their children to brainwash them into their way of seeing things. They want to have more influence over people's kids than their own parents.

for all you Red state bashers, if you've been keeping track of how many times Ive gotten to post this in LBN, make sure you smell what you shovel.

I would invite everyone to take a trip up to Central New York sometime. Lots of yahoos around here. Yellow ribbons stuck on sideways "Jesus fish" style are everywhere, sometimes three or four of them per vehicle.

Pennsylvania may have ended up as a blue state but York county (as well as most of central PA, aka northeast Alabama) went resoundingly for *.

I'm a Christian but I've only met one other Christian in my lifetime that has told me he thinks the earth started 8 thousand years ago.

This is weird. Don't lump these people with all Christians because that is not the case.

I should mention that 8k year guy is my boss, who told me today that if his son killed someone he would kill him, himself. I said, "but you really wouldn't" and he insisted he really would, for God. Scaaary. He is NOT a normal Christian.

"you've not doubt heard of what they do to child killers in prison, right? And if they come to question me, I'd have to tell the truth about what you've just said to me--which will set up premeditation."

Of course with a big smile on your face ;)

I don't know why you are all so surprised and aghast by this latest example of stupidity.
Sixty million idiots voted for that asshole in washington. did you expect them to disappear after the election? NO! they're out there, coexisting with you, fucking things up left and right, all year long.they're the ones who tailgate you at 75 mph on the highway, they get your order wrong at the deli or the restaurant, they assemble parts wrong in the factories so whatever you buy falls apart when you use it, they bump into you or step on your toes and never say excuse me, they pick their noses in their cars while blasting atrocious music so loud you have to listen to it, they drink twelve cans of beer at a sitting and belch like a sick cow, they want to ban catcher in the rye even though they've never read it,they support the teaching of creationism although they know nothing about evolution, and they vote for george asshole bush!
Stupidity wins!!!YAYYYYYY!!!!!!

"Your Friends (?) and Neighbors" who voted for *.

Now, whenever I learn someone voted for *, my first thought is "what's wrong with them"? Either stupid, ignorant, unable to think critically, or incapable of comprehending reality. Unless, of course, they are $$$ greedy bastards or defense contractors, the only people for whom a * vote makes sense

I think the watchword here is "thinking."

I know people who voted for bush, ardently support him in fact, and I find myself wondering what the HELL is wrong with them.

who pick our noses in our cars!

It's important for kids to learn the difference between fact and belief.

America is clearly a country that loves to regress. I hope all the reich wing women gladly comply with their up and coming orders to get their corsets, bustles, hoop skirts, and chastity belts on. Creationism is Hebrew Bible Theology class renamed. Theology does not belong in public school curricula. Hebrew Bible must be taught a certain way to be included in public school curricula. Biology and Geology class is not the place to teach religion, much less theology.

Read one of the recent National Geographics. Fundies always attack the simple version of the theory. They cannot even come close to the college level versions of this theory.

If people have a different opinion on the shape of the earth, it should be taught in schools.

right inside to the inner earth. I want this taught in
public schools. also, the moon has cheese.

but intelligent design isn't a scientific theory at all.

:headbang:
rocknation

these people insist on calling it "intelligent" design. Anyone who created Bush and O'Reilly can't possibly have had "intelligence" in mind when he started making humans....

Of course, mutations are the sine qua non of evolution. But for positive evolution to occur, the mutants must bring something of value to the table. That rules out the FAUX demagogue mutants. Unless they are to be the genetic patriarchs of a new dark age for humankind.

Intelligence is moot when you have a rich daddy.
The mutation need not necessarily be a postive thing,
for example a melanin protein variant that produces a new hair
color.

edit Clarification

This is just depressing. When I was a kid surrounded by fundi-douchbags, at least I could hang on to the idea of moving out of that limited IQ/small town mentality. But instead, that stupidity has spread throughout my whole fucking country.

I need a drink.

until the world is proven flat, and it's decided that breeders, oops I mean women don't need to learn to read and write. How this nation tolerates this psuedo-xtian swine is beyond me.

... that the Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure.

The Jatravartids, who live in perpetual fear of the time they call the Coming of the Great White Handkerchief, are small blue creatures with more than fifty arms each, who are therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel.

However, the Great Green Arkleseizure Theory is not widely accepted outside Viltvodle VI.

I wrote the following to a nuclear physicist friend who wants me to help them do PR against the fundies' invasion of school districts:

I believe our side is taking a dangerous tack by essentially equating Darwinism with atheism or agnosticism.

True, Behe has virtually thrown in with the fundamentalists. He and his theory thus deserve all the condemnation we can heap upon them.

But ID's central premise is supported by the vast majority of the public (plus many eminent scientists), namely that the universe is so complex it must be the creation of a higher form of intelligence (e.g. than humans). We must not permit Behe and the fundies to own that assertion in the court of public opinion.

Our side must grasp the fact that just as it is a non sequitur for them to claim that assertion proves the validity of a Genesis creation, so it is an equally unsupportable non sequitur for us to say Darwinian science proves a non-teleological universe.

The danger of our position is severe, as you point out. I believe that by stretching our facts as we are doing, we give an opening for the court to rule the other way. We must not join the ID forces in creating the public impression that Darwinian theory is incompatible with an intelligent creator. We must not allow them to own the possibility of a god.

It surely would not harm our cause if science teachers were permitted to add--in their teaching of evolution--the fact that some believe evolution is compatible with the idea of an intelligent creator of the universe.

We must not rest our argument on atheism. A far stronger argument is that the bible is only a primitive tribal attempt to explain the universe; that the bible's god is a fairy tale, but that Darwinian science does not conflict with more rational interpretations of a higher creative force.

Failing that, we risk getting on the wrong side of this case and of public opinion generally.

If this comes down to a popularity contest between the God of America's true believers and the atheism of many of its scientists, guess who wins.

That's my view, and I suppose the reason I've been a bit reluctant to get involved is that I'm not sure how heretical such an outlook is to those on our side of this thing.


This is is very positive reply:

Your view is not heretical. Indeed, it is held by the vast majority of scientists and educators who support science and the theory of evolution. It is the other side which equates evolution and atheism, and continues to vigorously attack theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller from Brown. Despite a semi-infinite set of rebuttals, they continue to make this claim because of its political and religious value. I have brought almost the entire Christian and Jewish communities in (state 1) and (state 2) to the table to support evolution, including the... (state) Council of Churches, representing about 600,000 members.

A small number of evolutionists are brazen atheists. The most outspoken and famous is Richard Dawkins. But you will be pleased to know that almost the entire rest of the nation recognizes that equating evolution with atheism is a losing proposition.