Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton





Made with NoteTab

December 19, 2005

Did the ACLU Lie to the Federal Courts in the Cobb County Evolution Sticker Case?

From Evolution News & Views...

Reports out of Georgia about this morning’s arguments in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is really interesting as the three Judge panel jumped all over the ACLU attorney.

First the Atlanta Journal Constitution leads with this:

Three federal appeals court judges today indicated a lower court judge got key facts wrong in declaring unconstitutional an evolution disclaimer sticker put in Cobb County science books.

During oral arguments, all members of the federal appeals court panel noted that U.S. District Court Judge Clarence Cooper made incorrect findings as the basis for his decision that the stickers violated the First Amendment by endorsing a religious viewpoint.

And if that isn’t interesting enough for you, here are a few comments from the Judges themselves:

"The court gives two bases for its findings and they're absolutely wrong," [Judge] Carnes told Atlanta lawyer Jeffrey Bramlett, who argued on behalf of five parents who sued the school board to get the stickers removed.

And:
Judge Frank Hull also noted that Cooper said the sticker misleads students even though there was no evidence to support that position.

"The order's problematic, you'd agree with that, in the way that it was written?" Hull asked Bramlett, who had little time to argue his position.

Judge Bill Pryor also noted that Cooper relied on facts that "are just contradicted by the record."

Meanwhile, the Associated Press is reporting:

"I don't think y'all can contest any of the sentences," Carnes said to an attorney for parents who sued challenging the stickers during a hearing on the case. "It is a theory, not a fact; the book supports that."

At the end of the session the Judges called the ACLU on the carpet about their legal briefs:

At the end of the arguments, Carnes took the highly unusual step of calling Bramlett back up to the podium and suggested he may have mislead the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in his legal brief filed with the court.

 Of course they lied, how else could they get some judge to make himself look so stupid as to rule that a sticker than says, in essence, "Have an open mind" is religious dogma.

Posted by Danny Carlton at December 19, 2005 05:17 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jacklewis.net/cgi-bin/mt/jl-tb.cgi/2315

Comments

Actually, according to the Panda's Thumb, Judge Carnes was incorrect about the timeline.

Posted by: Steve at December 19, 2005 01:20 PM

Hey Danny,
why don't all scientific theories have that sticker on them? You know very well why they don't and the motivation behind the sticker. False witness and all that, eh?

Posted by: Rich at December 19, 2005 02:43 PM

The motivation behind the sticker is to circumvent the zealots from the religion of Evolution in their effort to deceive school children into thinking the religion is a fact. Any theory that's treated as a fact should be handled the same way.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at December 20, 2005 06:28 AM

Like the theory of Gravity, etc., eh Danny boy? Even scientific "facts" are termed "theories", as they are always subject to question and testing. That's science, Danny boy.

Now as for the theory that God does everything, that superstition and/or religion. Unless you want to propose a series of scientific tests. Here's one, "God strike me dead right now if he's not just some mean sonofabitch drunken space alien in control of jack shit"

hmmm, still here. What happened, scientifically speaking?

Posted by: grumpy old fart at December 20, 2005 08:57 AM

"The motivation behind the sticker is to circumvent the zealots from the religion of Evolution in their effort to deceive school children into thinking the religion is a fact. Any theory that's treated as a fact should be handled the same way."

Do you actually believe that?

First of all - look at the criteria of being a "religion". Darwinism, or any methodologicaly naturilstic (scientific) mechanism fails. No prayer, gods, faith based belief systems etc.

the definition of theory:

[a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate FACTS and laws and tested hypothes]

Evoltion is a fact, Danny. those disease resistant antibodies weren't intelligently designed. They evolved. I'm sorry if the facts are incongruent with your belief system, but take heart that it did evolve to accept:

earth is older than 6000 years
earth is not flat
sun does not revolve around the earth.

"Any theory that's treated as a fact should be handled the same way" - great, I'll let you start the campaigns for:

Gravity
Chemical perodicity
Germ Theory

Will you also be putting "My contain no facts at all" on your bible?

Posted by: Rich at December 20, 2005 12:53 PM

Hey Danny boy, here's a great cartoon illustrating the aforementioned points. Not that I expect you to understand it. Maybe with some prayer, though....

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20051218

Posted by: grumpy old fart at December 20, 2005 03:39 PM

Freedom of religion walks a fine line on a lot of eggs these days. I think it's a shame. Christians have moralized the entire world. They have every right to defend all that they believe. And, they have since the beginning of CIVILIZATION. I am sure honest people will agree Christ had much to do with giving all people salvation from what he knew would be a hard world to live in with out Christans to guide. Salvation from what is descibed as hell. A very real place that I wouldn't want to be, with or without evolution. No matter what you choose to believe, it is wrong to take something as precious as the age old religion that has kept humans sane throughout time. We need it. I believe it is nature for us to need it.

Posted by: ANGELA at December 21, 2005 07:52 AM

I think you've missed the point, Angela. No one is damging your freedom of religion - everyone is free to believe what they want and rightly so.

You may not, however:

Force your religion on people using government time or money (schools)
Represent non science as science.

I also think that "Christians have moralized the entire world" is niaive at best and an lie at worst.

The real issue that has been with us for a while is that science and fact have been contridicting parts of the Christian mythos. (see my above post). Christianinty finally EVOLVES when faced with overwhelming evidence, and it will do here too.

Please underatnd no one wants to take your faith from you and I would fight tooth and nail if anyone was, be you Christain, Hindu, scientologist. But let's give the kids the best possible eductaion - a factual one.

Posted by: Rich at December 21, 2005 09:50 AM

What kind of education system breeds posters like Angela? Do you have any knowledge of world history, or even the history of your own religion (or branch thereof)?

In any case, science has nothing to do with religion. Science does not tell you what faith or salvation system believe in, or not believe in, it merely seeks to explain the natural world. It is not philosophy.

Every theory of science is open to question through experimentation. You suspect a theory is wrong? Then design experiments to test it. Science welcomes inquiry. You say God created everything in one fell swoop and that evolution theory is crap? Great, show us the proof, and let us test it.

What's that you say? It's all about faith? Sorry ma'am, religion and philosophy class is down the hall. This is a SCIENCE class.

Posted by: grumpy old fart at December 21, 2005 10:53 AM

Like the theory of Gravity, etc., eh Danny boy? Even scientific "facts" are termed "theories", as they are always subject to question and testing. That's science, Danny boy.

There is gravity, then there are the various theories of why gravity works. Gravity itself is an observable fact. The various theories of why it works are theories and are never presented as fact. To do so would be unscientific.

Now as for the theory that God does everything, that superstition and/or religion. Unless you want to propose a series of scientific tests. Here's one, "God strike me dead right now if he's not just some mean s*******h drunken space alien in control of jack s***"

hmmm, still here. What happened, scientifically speaking?

An idiotic test. You pose a result based on flawed criteria. The assumption is that God will do what you tell Him to do, but that He doesn't demonstrates at the very least that He is wise enough not to listen to fools.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at December 21, 2005 10:59 AM

"but that He doesn't demonstrates at the very least that He is wise enough not to listen to fools." or isn't real - that's another conclusion. Poor use of logic, Danny.

What specifically is your issue with evolution, Danny? Post them and I'll try my best to show the current thoughts and facts on the issue, in good faith.

Rich

Posted by: Rich at December 21, 2005 11:12 AM

"The motivation behind the sticker is to circumvent the zealots from the religion of Evolution in their effort to deceive school children into thinking the religion is a fact. Any theory that's treated as a fact should be handled the same way."

Do you actually believe that?

First of all - look at the criteria of being a "religion". Darwinism, or any methodologicaly naturilstic (scientific) mechanism fails. No prayer, gods, faith based belief systems etc.

A religion is the view of origins and meaning that a person builds their personal world view upon. There is no need for prayers or gods. As for faith, though, Evolution requires tons of it. The idea that chemicals could spontaneously combine into complex life, regardless of the amount of time, is ludicrous. Believing that takes real faith.

the definition of theory:

[a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate FACTS and laws and tested hypothes]

Evoltion is a fact, Danny. those disease resistant antibodies weren't intelligently designed. They evolved. I'm sorry if the facts are incongruent with your belief system, but take heart that it did evolve to accept:

Evolution is a religion. There is no proof that anything ever evolved. An organism develops anti-bodies to combat disease. Within the vast amount of information in the genetic code are more than enough variations to accommodate adaptation without mutation.

earth is older than 6000 years
earth is not flat
sun does not revolve around the earth.

Tossing the two red herrings aside, yes the earth is around 6,000 years old, and there exists no proof otherwise.

"Any theory that's treated as a fact should be handled the same way" - great, I'll let you start the campaigns for:

Gravity
Chemical perodicity
Germ Theory

Gravity is a fact, not a theory. While there are various theories about the mechanism of gravity, they are theories and are never treated as fact.

I will assume you mean Chemical Periodicity (do you not believe in dictionaries?) There is a testable theory, that while the actual locations of electrons can't be observed, the behavior of atoms and molecule can be observed and measured. No such thing can be said for the religion of Evolution. We have no way of either observing or testing it. Any effort to try is met with the dogmatic denial that not enough time was given, therefore the claim that Evolution is a fact must stand.

The same is true of Germ Theory. The theory was tested and the results observed. The religion of Evolution can not be tested, therefore the zealots of that religion claim that it must be true.

Will you also be putting "My contain no facts at all" on your bible?

We acknowledge our religion is religion. Why would we need a disclaimer to note the fact that what it teaches takes faith to believe. You guys are the ones trying to claim the unprovable must be believed as fact and pretend it is science.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at December 21, 2005 11:22 AM

Hey Danny boy, here's a great cartoon illustrating the aforementioned points. Not that I expect you to understand it. Maybe with some prayer, though....

Who would ever use Doonesbury as proof of anything other than the level of stupidity a cartoonist can fall to?

Posted by: Danny Carlton at December 21, 2005 11:24 AM

I think you've missed the point, Angela. No one is damging your freedom of religion - everyone is free to believe what they want and rightly so.

Except our taxes, which are taken from us by force, are then used to proselytize for the religion of Evolution in government schools.

You may not, however:

Force your religion on people using government time or money (schools)

Only the zealots of the religion of Evolution are allowed to do that.

Represent non science as science.

Again the zealots of the religion of Evolution have the monopoly on that as well.

I also think that "Christians have moralized the entire world" is niaive at best and an lie at worst.

If that means "brought the world into a better moral standing" then she's absolutely right. Without Christianity there would still be slavery, there would be no democracy, there would be no equal rights for women, there would be no public education. Christians were central to instituting each and every one of those aspects of what we take for granted in modern society.

The real issue that has been with us for a while is that science and fact have been contridicting parts of the Christian mythos. (see my above post). Christianinty finally EVOLVES when faced with overwhelming evidence, and it will do here too.

Neither since nor fact contradict Christianity. The religion of Evolution, however, does contradict both Christianity as well as science and fact. And Christianity has not evolved. Not one par of the Bible has ever been proven to be incorrect. The religion of Evolution, on the other hand, must continually be changed to accommodate blatant and embarrassing flaws which can no longer be hidden from the public, all the while maintaining the charade that it is viable "science".

Please underatnd no one wants to take your faith from you and I would fight tooth and nail if anyone was, be you Christain, Hindu, scientologist. But let's give the kids the best possible eductaion - a factual one.

When our children are indoctrinated into your religion in taxpayer funded schools, then yes, you are trying to take our religion away from us.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at December 21, 2005 11:41 AM

What kind of education system breeds posters like Angela?

Wouldn't that be the same education system that teaches the religion of Evolution as "science"?

Do you have any knowledge of world history, or even the history of your own religion (or branch thereof)?

In any case, science has nothing to do with religion. Science does not tell you what faith or salvation system believe in, or not believe in, it merely seeks to explain the natural world. It is not philosophy.

Yet the religion of Evolution, which is paraded as "science" in government schools defies the very core of what true science is supposed to be. Why else would the zealots of that religion oppose a sticker that encourages students to have open minds?

Every theory of science is open to question through experimentation.

True, but then Evolution is not really a scientific theory, it's barely a hypothesis when it's not practiced as a religion.

You suspect a theory is wrong? Then design experiments to test it.

Yet there is no way to test Evolution.

Science welcomes inquiry.

Another good argument for why Evolution is not science. Evolutionists hate inquiry.

You say God created everything in one fell swoop and that evolution theory is crap? Great, show us the proof, and let us test it.

Right after you test Evolution. No one is claiming Christianity is science. But the ID people are claiming that the concept of an intelligent cause in the origins of the universe and life is a viable scientific theory. If patterns were found on the surface of rocks and person A theories that it was caused by wind and person B theories they were caused by a chemical reaction and person C theorized they were made by h7man centuries ago—would you call person C's theory religion and not scientific? That is exactly what the zealots of the religion of Evolution are doing when they scream that ID is not science.

What's that you say? It's all about faith? Sorry ma'am, religion and philosophy class is down the hall. This is a SCIENCE class.

Then remove Evolution from it and be honest about the whole thing.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at December 21, 2005 11:50 AM

>>Except our taxes, which are taken from us by force, are then used to proselytize for the religion of Evolution in government schools.
Yes! And the religions of Mathematics, History and Grammar! *sigh*
>>Represent non science as science.
Again the zealots of the religion of Evolution have the monopoly on that as well.
Danny – science has been defined. If you wish to redefine I tto your own ends then you are in a very small, minority position.
>>If that means "brought the world into a better moral standing" then she's absolutely right. Without Christianity there would still be slavery, there would be no democracy, there would be no equal rights for women, there would be no public education. Christians were central to instituting each and every one of those aspects of what we take for granted in modern society.
Can you prove this, or are you just hand waving? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy
>>Neither since nor fact contradict Christianity. The religion of Evolution, however, does contradict both Christianity as well as science and fact. And Christianity has not evolved. Not one par of the Bible has ever been proven to be incorrect. The religion of Evolution, on the other hand, must continually be changed to accommodate blatant and embarrassing flaws which can no longer be hidden from the public, all the while maintaining the charade that it is viable "science".
Oh it does, Danny, lots of times. That’s why there is no literal interpretation of the bible any more. How old do YOU think the earth and universe are?
>>When our children are indoctrinated into your religion in taxpayer funded schools, then yes, you are trying to take our religion away from us.
Again Danny, you and your unique definition of ‘religion’ - *sigh*

Posted by: Rich at December 21, 2005 11:56 AM

What specifically is your issue with evolution, Danny? Post them and I'll try my best to show the current thoughts and facts on the issue, in good faith.

That it's mythology posing as science and forced onto unsuspecting students at the financial expense of those who oppose it, is not enough?

Posted by: Danny Carlton at December 21, 2005 12:04 PM

I believe you've made an honest attempt to point out your issues.

Mythlogy: No, its an observed fact.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

Plus the fossil record gives us many transitional forms.

So its science, I’m afraid.

With regard to “unsuspecting students”, that probably applies to algebra and French, too! *wink*

Not everyone will agree what should be taught in schools and the extreme worldviews of some folks mean they should not really have a say. With regard to keeping Christianity clean of science, home schooling and Christian colleges seem popular. Sadly you will still have to pay your taxes (as do people with no children.)

Posted by: Rich at December 21, 2005 12:26 PM

No part of the Bible has ever been proven incorrect? Pardon? Did you really say that? Hell, it proves itself incorrect time and time again.

Questions just from the holiday season:

Where did Mary and Joseph take Jesus after his birth?

What year was Jesus born?

What is the genealogy of Jesus?

Who was Jesus' father?

Enjoy, I've got to get back to my religion of mathematics class....we're trying to work out that 2+2 thing.....

Posted by: grumpy old fart at December 21, 2005 03:07 PM

>>Except our taxes, which are taken from us by force, are then used to proselytize for the religion of Evolution in government schools.

Yes! And the religions of Mathematics, History and Grammar! *sigh*

You fail to understand one of the basic rules of science...facts may not be presumed. You presume Evolution to be true and ignore the lack of evidence.

>>Represent non science as science.

Again the zealots of the religion of Evolution have the monopoly on that as well.

Danny – science has been defined. If you wish to redefine I tto your own ends then you are in a very small, minority position.

Well, there's the actual definition, then there's the pretend definition that Evolutionists use, so that they can call their religion "science"

>>If that means "brought the world into a better moral standing" then she's absolutely right. Without Christianity there would still be slavery, there would be no democracy, there would be no equal rights for women, there would be no public education. Christians were central to instituting each and every one of those aspects of what we take for granted in modern society.

Can you prove this, or are you just hand waving? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy

Democracy was a failing fad until the Christians that founded this nation established the first solid Democracy.

>>Neither since nor fact contradict Christianity. The religion of Evolution, however, does contradict both Christianity as well as science and fact. And Christianity has not evolved. Not one par of the Bible has ever been proven to be incorrect. The religion of Evolution, on the other hand, must continually be changed to accommodate blatant and embarrassing flaws which can no longer be hidden from the public, all the while maintaining the charade that it is viable "science".

Oh it does, Danny, lots of times. That’s why there is no literal interpretation of the bible any more. How old do YOU think the earth and universe are?

Give one example of science (real science, not the religion of Evolution) contradicting the Bible.

>>When our children are indoctrinated into your religion in taxpayer funded schools, then yes, you are trying to take our religion away from us.

Again Danny, you and your unique definition of ‘religion’ - *sigh*

It's not unique at all. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with me.

Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion. Fleischfresser v. Dirs. of Sch. Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 688 n.5 (7th Cir. 1994)...

The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 125 S.Ct. 2722 (2005). The Establishment Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.” In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.” — Kaufman v. McCaughtry. 04-1914. 08/19/05. 419 F3d 678

Posted by: Danny Carlton at December 22, 2005 05:53 PM

>>You fail to understand one of the basic rules of science...facts may not be presumed. You presume Evolution to be true and ignore the lack of evidence.

Not at all – transatitional fossils, common genetic code are evidence.

>>Again the zealots of the religion of Evolution have the monopoly on that as well.

Gobels would be proud – keep saying it and people might think its true!

>>Well, there's the actual definition, then there's the pretend definition that Evolutionists use, so that they can call their religion "science"

why do you give us the “actual definition”, with sources please.

>>Democracy was a failing fad until the Christians that founded this nation established the first solid Democracy.

I see you’ve changed your position (lied), but Again, please :Can you prove this, or are you just hand waving?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy

>>Give one example of science (real science, not the religion of Evolution) contradicting the Bible.

My pleasure. The bible suggest the world is approximately 6000 years old and the universe about the same. Carbon dating and astronomy refute these.


>>It's not unique at all. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with me.

>>Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion. Fleischfresser v. Dirs. of Sch. Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 688 n.5 (7th Cir. 1994)...
The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 125 S.Ct. 2722 (2005). The Establishment Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.” In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.” — Kaufman v. McCaughtry. 04-1914. 08/19/05. 419 F3d 678

First, you are equation evolution with atheism, which is wrong. The catholic church stands behind evolution.

Second, Did you actually read this?

“the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion”
The Supreme Court has recognized atheism AS EQIVALENT TO a “religion” FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

Its given the same weight with regard to the establishment clause. That DOES NOT MAKE IT A RELGION.

Posted by: Rich at December 22, 2005 06:15 PM

I believe you've made an honest attempt to point out your issues.

Mythlogy: No, its an observed fact.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

The "evidence" molestus is a new species is solely that it won't breed with pipiens. Based on that Rose O'Donnell must be a different species that most men.

Helacyton gartleri are cancer cells, not a new species.

Although polyploidy may "technically" be called a new species, because of the breeding isolation, no new information has been produced, just repetitious doubling of existing information. If a malfunction in a printing press caused a book to be printed with every page doubled, it would not be more informative than the proper book.

The rest are as easily trashed. Does anyone really take that site serious any more?

Plus the fossil record gives us many transitional forms.

My dish draw gives plenty of transitional forms between  a teaspoon and a soup ladle. Does that prove the soup ladle evolved?

So its science, I’m afraid.

No, your religion is still just a religion.

With regard to “unsuspecting students”, that probably applies to algebra and French, too! *wink*

No, it refers to people like you who know little of science, and blindly follow the false teaching of a religion posing as science.

Not everyone will agree what should be taught in schools and the extreme worldviews of some folks mean they should not really have a say. With regard to keeping Christianity clean of science, home schooling and Christian colleges seem popular. Sadly you will still have to pay your taxes (as do people with no children.)

I do homeschool, and my kids stay well ahead of their government school counter parts. They learn to think for themselves, and not accept what someone says as fact unless it's proven.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at December 22, 2005 06:21 PM

No part of the Bible has ever been proven incorrect? Pardon? Did you really say that? Hell, it proves itself incorrect time and time again.

Questions just from the holiday season:

Where did Mary and Joseph take Jesus after his birth?

The Bible doesn't say. How would that prove it wrong?

What year was Jesus born?

The Bible also doesn't say that either. Lack of specific information doesn't prove it's false. My science book never mentions where Darwin used the bathroom. Does that mean it can be dismissed as false?

What is the genealogy of Jesus?

Look in Matthew for His genealogy through Joseph (His adopted father) and in Luke for His genealogy through Mary. Cultural traditions referenced both as through Joseph, but Luke got the information from Mary, so we know that one is hers.

Who was Jesus' father?

God, the Bible makes that very clear.

Enjoy, I've got to get back to my religion of mathematics class....we're trying to work out that 2+2 thing.....

I can imagine how that could stump you since you've fallen for Evolution.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at December 22, 2005 06:25 PM

>>You fail to understand one of the basic rules of science...facts may not be presumed. You presume Evolution to be true and ignore the lack of evidence.

Not at all – transatitional fossils, common genetic code are evidence.

Hardly. Similarity in both fossils and genetic code are not proof of ancestry.

>>Well, there's the actual definition, then there's the pretend definition that Evolutionists use, so that they can call their religion "science"

why do you give us the “actual definition”, with sources please.

"The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." seems to be one used quite often. Evolution cannot be tested, ignores observation and presumes facts without proof. It is not science.

>>Democracy was a failing fad until the Christians that founded this nation established the first solid Democracy.

I see you’ve changed your position (lied), but Again, please :Can you prove this, or are you just hand waving?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy

I wrote: "Without Christianity...there would be no democracy" You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. When Sun Yat Tsen tried to establish democracy in China, he did so as an Atheist, and wrote that he couldn't see democracy as something natural, but necessary for freedom. Democracy in China fell, as it has done over and over again in cultures all over the world as the ambitious took power over the slovenly. It was only when Democratic principles were applied to a society based in Christian morality that it was embraced as natural, correct and good, as well as necessary.

>>Give one example of science (real science, not the religion of Evolution) contradicting the Bible.

My pleasure. The bible suggest the world is approximately 6000 years old and the universe about the same. Carbon dating and astronomy refute these.

Carbon dating has been repeatedly proven to be unreliable. Astronomy does not prove anything beyond a few millennia. Not one method posed as a means of determining distance or age can be scientifically confirmed unless one ignore salient factors as well as basic trigonometry.

>>It's not unique at all. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with me.

>>Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion. Fleischfresser v. Dirs. of Sch. Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 688 n.5 (7th Cir. 1994)...
The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 125 S.Ct. 2722 (2005). The Establishment Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.” In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.” — Kaufman v. McCaughtry. 04-1914. 08/19/05. 419 F3d 678

First, you are equation evolution with atheism, which is wrong. The catholic church stands behind evolution.

No, a senile Pope babbled that Evolution was compatible with Christianity. Note that subject is now quietly avoided until the new Pope can figure out a way of contradicting Pope john Paul while not doing damage to their teaching of papal infallibility.

Second, Did you actually read this?

“the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion”
The Supreme Court has recognized atheism AS EQIVALENT TO a “religion” FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

Its given the same weight with regard to the establishment clause. That DOES NOT MAKE IT A RELGION.

It being considered a religion doesn't make it a religion? Orwell would be proud of you. You missed the part that said, "the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion." Which explains why the term "nonreligion" would be a misnomer in this case.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at December 22, 2005 06:47 PM

>>Hardly. Similarity in both fossils and genetic code are not proof of ancestry.
You asked for evidence. If you want proof – how about it has been observed and documented?
1. Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.
• All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
• Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
• Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
• Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
• The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
• Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
• Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
• Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
• The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
• Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
• The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
• When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
• The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
• Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
• Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
• Speciation has been observed.
• The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).

The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.
Links:
Theobald, Douglas. 2004. 29+ Evidences for macroevolution: The scientific case for common descent. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Colby, Chris. 1993. Evidence for evolution: An eclectic survey. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html

Moran, Laurence. 1993. Evolution is a fact and a theory. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
>>"The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." seems to be one used quite often. Evolution cannot be tested, ignores observation and presumes facts without proof. It is not science.
According to philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper, a theory must be falsifiable to qualify as scientific. Popper (1976, 151) said, "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme."
Source:
Kranz, Russell. n.d. Karl Popper's challenge. http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v02n4p20.htm
Response:
1. Popper's statement of nonfalsifiability was pretty mild, not as extensive as it is often taken. He applied it only to natural selection, not evolution as a whole, and he allowed that some testing of natural selection was possible, just not a significant amount.

Moreover, he said that natural selection is a useful theory. A "metaphysical research programme" was to him not a bad thing; it is an essential part of science, as it guides productive research by suggesting predictions. He said of Darwinism,
And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that. (Popper 1976, 171-172)
Finally, Popper notes that theism as an explanation of adaptation "was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached" (Popper 1976, 172).
2. Popper later changed his mind and recognized that natural selection is testable. Here is an excerpt from a later writing on "Natural Selection and Its Scientific Status" (Miller 1985, 241-243; see also Popper 1978):
When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory - that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.

However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology [see CA500]. A tautology like 'All tables are tables' is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. C. H. Waddington says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that 'Natural selection . . . turns out ... to be a tautology' ..4 However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an 'enormous power. ... of explanation'. Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.

Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.

I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as 'almost tautological', and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.

I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.
Links:
Brush, Stephen G. 1994. Popper and evolution. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 13(4)-14(1): 29. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8401_popper_and_evolution_9_10_2003.asp
References:
1. Miller, David. 1985. Popper Selections.
2. Popper, Karl. 1976. Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography Glasgow: Fontana/Collins.
3. Popper, Karl. 1978. Natural selection and the emergence of mind. Dialectica 32: 339-355. (excerpt at http://www.geocities.com/criticalrationalist/popperevolution.htm )
Further Reading:
Cole, John R. 1981. Misquoted scientists respond. Creation/Evolution 6: 34-44.
I see you’ve changed your position (lied), but Again, please :Can you prove this, or are you just hand waving?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy
>>I wrote: "Without Christianity...there would be no democracy" You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. When Sun Yat Tsen tried to establish democracy in China, he did so as an Atheist, and wrote that he couldn't see democracy as something natural, but necessary for freedom. Democracy in China fell, as it has done over and over again in cultures all over the world as the ambitious took power over the slovenly. It was only when Democratic principles were applied to a society based in Christian morality that it was embraced as natural, correct and good, as well as necessary.
No, you are arguing from ignorance. There is no reason to assume that democracy would have died without Christianity as it was created without it.
>>Carbon dating has been repeatedly proven to be unreliable. Astronomy does not prove anything beyond a few millennia. Not one method posed as a means of determining distance or age can be scientifically confirmed unless one ignore salient factors as well as basic trigonometry.
1. Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement that exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages as old as 50,000 years but not much older. Using it to date older items will give bad results. Samples can be contaminated with younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of excess 12C released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Revolution and excess 14C produced by atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950s, materials less than 150 years old cannot be dated with radiocarbon (Faure 1998, 294).

In their claims of errors, creationists do not consider misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for them to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old (for example, Triassic "wood") or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the carbon-14 dating method.
2. Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb (MNSU n.d.; Watson 2001). Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques (e.g., Bard et al. 1990).
References:
1. Bard, Edouard, Bruno Hamelin, Richard G. Fairbanks and Alan Zindler, 1990. Calibration of the 14C timescale over the past 30,000 years using mass spectrometric U-Th ages from Barbados corals. Nature 345: 405-410.
2. Faure, Gunter, 1998. Principles and Applications of Geochemistry, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3. MNSU, n.d. Radio-carbon dating. http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/archaeology/dating/radio_carbon.html
4. Watson, Kathie, 2001. Radiometric time scale. http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html
Further Reading:
Higham, Tom, 1999. Radiocarbon WEB-Info. http://www.c14dating.com/
>>No, a senile Pope babbled that Evolution was compatible with Christianity. Note that subject is now quietly avoided until the new Pope can figure out a way of contradicting Pope john Paul while not doing damage to their teaching of papal infallibility.
So you admit that Catholocism a branch of Christianity currently accepts evolution, as do many scientists of many faiths. Your own interpretation of scripture is no more or less valid than theres.
“the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion”
The Supreme Court has recognized atheism AS EQIVALENT TO a “religion” FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
Its given the same weight with regard to the establishment clause. That DOES NOT MAKE IT A RELGION.
It being considered a religion doesn't make it a religion?
No, “as equivalent to” is the key phrase. A woman’s vote is “as equivalent to” a mans – but one is a woman’s vote and one is a mans. Its phrased to stop the government promoting atheism, as in China for example. By your logic, “bald” is a hair colour.
You still conflate atheism with evolution.

Posted by: Rich at December 22, 2005 07:18 PM

Rich says again and again about evolution that "...its science, I’m afraid" and that it is fact.

Sorry Rich. Aside from your continual grammatical errors (yeh, yeh, I know: grammar is primarily syntactical, which means that its logic eludes those who are weak logicians), you make these kinds of contrafactual assertions. Most real scientists would readily and openly acknow;edge that the process of hypothesizing and testing of hypotheses along the way to constructing a theory demand experimentation of falsifiable hypotheses.

Not once have the fundamental priciples of the neo-darwinist evolution stance you seem to have little actual knowledge of been tested in this way. Because they cannot be. As a "theory" it is still a mass of often contradictory, untested hypotheses.

While I found this lil discussion briefly interesting, I have little incentive to remain and listen to Rich who simply do not know what he's talking about spouts off about evolution and religion (and history) when all he does is reveal his stark subliteracy in each area.

Boring. Used (briefly) to have to listen to seventh-fraders pull similar subliterate stunts until I washed my hands of "prisons for kids" public education.

Rich: go get a real education (if you've not permanently stunted your reasoning abilities by now) and then talk with adults about the subjects.

May I suggest you blow your lil mind trying to deal with the maths of Sir Fred Hoyle—very nearly the prototypical Intelligent Design student/advocate, and not at ALL Christian or even religious—before you insist on further demonstrating your immense lack of knowledge about either intelligent design arguments OR neodarwinism?

BTW, completely aside from the mystical neodarwinist religion of a Dawkins or the sadly all-too-typical self-delusion of many creationists, Darwin's essential proposition of incremental evolution, as diametrically opposed to the neodarwinism you argue so maladroitly, is not only widely accepted mong intelligent design folks, but can in some small elements be falsified. Completely unlike the neodarwinism that's taught as "fact" or "science" today.

But understanding these things would mean you'd have to actually learn something about the subject matter, instead of spouting a religious stnace that is even less rational that the religion of postivist reductionism that is the base of neodarwinism. Not a likely possibility from the evidence you've displayed thus far. Heck, your conflation of creationism and intelligent design alone is enough to impeach your entire argument. Completely clueless.

Poser.

Posted by: David at December 23, 2005 04:36 PM

Hello David.

Many thanks for your Ad Hominem attacks, the hallmark of a strong arguing position and a secure, logical debater.

Where to start, Should I point out your many grammatically and syntactical errors? Or perhaps “mong intelligent design folks” is the most journalistic of Freudian slips? I have a master’s degree from an Ivy League school – but regardless it’s the content of the argument not the credentials of the arguer, surely?

With regard to understanding ID:
I can’t cite any papers as they don’t actually do any research. But the two main concepts are specified complexity and irreducible complexity. Specified complexity speaks to the universal Probability Bound. The UPB is arbitrary, some say 10^50, others 10^150. I have never seen a convincing argument with actual numbers and assumptions for SC, although I have seen Avida use auto recursive / evolutionary mechanisms to beat 10^25 odds. I do see D*mbski engaging in a lot of hand waving, though.

Irreducible complexity was debunked in the trail, if you followed it. They showed how a subset of the parts of the bacterial flagella are used by other Bacteria for other purposes, and that the blood clotting cascade still worked without some components.

Would you like me to falsify both Darwinism / Neo Darwinism.?

There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:
• a static fossil record;
• true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs);
• a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
• Observations of organisms being created.

Further Reading:
Bowler, Peter J. 1983. The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian evolution theories in the decades around 1900. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
(Look – a supported argument, why don’t you try?)
I brace myself for more pedantry and personal attacks. What would baby Jesus say?

Oh, PS. - "mystical neodarwinist religion" - you might want to look up "religion".

Thanks.

Posted by: Rich at December 23, 2005 05:53 PM

Danny, I feel sorry for your children not being able to explore the many faiths and make an informed, non-partisan opinion.

If Helacyton gartleri are cancer cells, not a new species – why do only they survive outside of a host for many generations, never dying?

I’m upset the “religion of evolution” didn’t get a stronger showing:

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

“My dish draw gives plenty of transitional forms between a teaspoon and a soup ladle. Does that prove the soup ladle evolved?”

I don’t know Danny – do you thin they were all spontaneously created, or they were adapted over time for different environments?

You still need to apply the common definition of religion, by the way.

Thanks.

Posted by: Rich at December 23, 2005 07:00 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.