New front opens on evolution wars

And the apocalyptic messages promoting the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming somehow are not a "religious doctrine"? Human impacts on our environment, including climate, may be numerous and profound; but the version advanced in the popular dialogue today - that human activity is inherently evil and that we are quietly sowing our own destruction, and with its messages of repentance, sacrifice, and even indulgences for CO2 "sins" - parallels the teachings of nearly every religious movement that has ever sought Man's fidelity and submission.

"If this bill passes, and religious materials are brought into Louisiana public schools as a result, we will go to court to seek justice for the state's children," Americans United for Separation of Church and State Executive Director Barry Lynn said earlier this week. Religious materials will NOT be brought in. That's not the purpose of the new provisions. If ID, or even the possibility of a 'design inference' is mentioned, there may be a complaint filed by some militant parent, but it won't result in legal action. Although a district judge in Dover PA ruled ID as religion, that kind of a summary ruling does not fall within jurisprudence. Intelligent Design does not meet the requirements of religion, i.e. scriptural texts, rituals, a deity, a belief system, prophetic writings, etc. It's simply the premise of intervention, at certain points in time, in the biologic progression of life forms. It is also tentative, subject to verification. That constitutes valid science, and certainly not 'religion'. Since the new standards strictly prohibit religious teachings of any kind, what is the risk? There is none, unless you go along with the nonsense that ID is religion. It is not.

Evolution itself is a religious viewpoint. It's a statement that you hold an athiestic worldview. And atheism is a religious belief. Everyone has a worldview that influences how they believe the world began. Since there is no scientific proof for any that is acceptable to all, then either ALL views should be welcome and open to discussion or none should. And that includes evolution.

Evolution is not a religious point of view. It is simply a theory attempting to approximate observed phenomenon. As such it is one of the most successful theories in science. That it closely explains the origins aqnd development of life on earth is obvious to anyone who has actually studied the subject. That aspects of the theory are open to different interpretations is equally obvious. That this level of discourse doesn't belong in a standard high school class room is also obvious. That the purpose of this bill is not to foster discussion whether homo erectus is closer to homo sapien or primate or if neandertal is a true descendent of modern humans is equally obvious. The intent of this bill and all the other bills or reading stmts or alternative text books is not to foster discussion about the content evolution but a desperate attempt by those who believe it contradicts the bible to overturn the teaching of evolution. As if somehow not teaching it to others would somehow make the truth of evolution go away.

I hate education for this great lie of evilution they have controlled us with. But I also laugh at their ignorance. I wonder what they will think when they are slaves?

Anyone who thinks that the battle over teaching evolution has nothing to do with religion is either a lying idiot or is supremely ignorant with regards to the history of the evolution battle. Who's pushing for these bills? Louisiana Family Forum, The Discovery Institute? All Christian creationist organizations. The history of so-called "intelligent design" theory (which it's not, a theory is a framework model supported by evidence useful for making predictions). Intelligent design meets the requirements of being valid science the same way that the Stork theory of childbirth does. There is no problem with the teaching of science currently. Bills like this only want to make it seem so. Creationist can't get their dogma pushed through actual science channels because "Goddidit!" isn't science. But put it in the heads of our children while they're young, ahh! They don't know any better. Religious nutballs will obviously never give up in their fight to try to control everyone else's lives and push their sky fairy daddy myths on everyone they can so they don't feel so deluded themselves.

pcoup: Evolution appears a religious viewpoint to those who get all of their knowledge hearsay, and to whom it's all a matter of deciding which group of people to agree with. They should try hanging with scientists, or at least taking a few classes at the University level, to see how what scientists do differs from what those involved in the word-manipulation game (preachers, lawyers, salespeople, and politicians, mainly) do. Start by learning the mathematics of evolution, and get away from the crude verbal BS. Of course everyone has a worldview. The question is, how was that worldview arrived at? Through yielding to emotional appeals (comfort of alignment with cultural, social, and/or family norms, promises and hope of heaven, threats and fear of hell), or through examination of evidence, logic and deduction? Is the ultimate basis of the person's worldview a commitment to determine what's true, as scientists, investigators and judges possess, or a motivated decision regarding what's true, as religionists, politicians, lawyers and salespeople push? Doesn't the very fact that scientists don't offer incentives to agree with them, and only appeal to your desire to be on the side of truth, tell you something? The main difference between a scientific theory and speculation like ID lies in its predictive power. If you don't "believe" in the predictive power of evolutionary theory, then if you're ever unfortunate enough to fall victim to cancer, you should probably refuse the new class of genetically engineered drugs used to treat it. And if you don't understand or "believe" the link between knowledge of evolution and the development of those drugs, just ask the engineers who develop them. And prepare for a lecture. leebwman: ID being "subject to verification" is insufficient for inclusion in a science curriculum. The material presented has to have been validated, which means it must produce reproducible predictive results. If A (evolution) then B; if not A then C. B happens and C doesn't, predictably and reproducibly. We become so confident in the results we begin designing products around them--and the products work. That's part of what makes a scientific theory superior to a colloquial "theory", or speculation. It will never happen with ID, because by definition it cannot. Speculative philosophical constructs have no predictive power, and no power to move society forward in the scientific/technological sense. chute me: The parallel you draw is apt, but that doesn't automatically mean it applies. You can't just read messages of evil and sin into the dialog, especially when those who initiated it are of a scientific bent and most scientists have little or no use for such concepts. What if we actually were "quietly sowing our own destruction"? With your approach, we could never recognize the problem. If only the people responsible for hurricane preparedness in New Orleans hadn't thought like that.

Given the massive scientific support that exists in favor of evolution from all areas of science, debating its validity is a little like opening up conversation as to whether the earth is round or flat.

The separation of church and state law was designed to prevent the state forcing constituency into religious bonds. Choice of thought is not forcing anything. Has evolution become a religion? How about global warming? Are the skeptics being shouted down? Maybe we need to ask the President of Czech Republic.

Evolution has absolutely no scientific evidence to support its claim that life has originated by random chance. It is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one, and adherents must embrace it by concocted suppositions and sheer faith. Here are merely 9 points out of thousands that are scientifically contrary to evolution. Why aren't these points being taught in our public classrooms today? 1. What is meant by spontaneous generation and has it been proven to be true or false? Spontaneous generation is the idea that non-living matter can spontaneously form into living matter (cell). It was scientifically proven false in the mid 1800's and never been proven otherwise. 2. What was the goal of the Miller experiment? The goal of the Miller experiment was to form (spontaneously generate) amino acids necessary for life. 3. Miller left oxygen out of his experiment. Why did he do this and what does the scientific evidence support? Miller left oxygen out of his experiment because he knew oxygen causes molecular bonds to come apart, such as in amino acid bonds. Furthermore, contrary to the no-oxygen setting of Miller's experiment, the scientific evidence supports the earth has always had oxygen in the atmosphere. 4. Miller did get amino acids from his experiment. How did the amino acids he got compare to amino acids found in life? Miller got a mix of 50% left-handed amino acids and 50% right-handed amino acids. Life requires 100% left-handed amino acids. This means the Miller experiment failed to produce the correct amino acids necessary for life. 5. What can be concluded about all attempts to build proteins necessary for life (biological proteins) from amino acids by natural processes? Every attempt to produce amino acids by natural processes has ended up with a mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids. Even when the experiment started with all left-handed amino acids, the amino acids naturally reverted back to a mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids. 6. Some textbooks and other evolutionary materials suggest that life started in the ocean. Is it possible for life to start in water? Life cannot start in water. Water contains an oxygen molecule which will insert itself into amino acid bonds. The result is that if the amino acids did bond together, they would very soon be pulled apart. Continued below .....

... continued from above: 7. Why do the following three things prohibit life from arising by natural processes (evolution). a. Oxygen: Oxygen pulls molecule bonds apart. Amino acids necessary for life will not form or bond together in the presence of oxygen. b. No oxygen: Without oxygen in the atmosphere there would be no ozone to protect molecules or any life. c. Handedness of amino acids: All amino acids in proteins are left-handed. The natural tendency is always to a mix of left-handed and right-handed amino acids. 8. The probability of a biological protein being formed by natural processes, even given very generous assumptions, is 10 to the 191st power. The probability of a single cell being formed by natural processes is 10 to the 40,000th power. What about the argument: “Given enough time it will happen?” Even given enough time (20 billion years), there is not enough time for even a single protein to form by random chance. Plus, mathematicians agree that any probability of 10 to the 50th power50 means that it will not happen. 9. All living forms live, grow, and exist using very complex governing codes (DNA). What are the four necessary conditions for something to gain in information and complexity? • An open system • A source of energy • A mechanism to capture and store the raw energy • A mechanism to convert the raw energy into usable energy for doing work and then putting the energy to use Evolution offers neither a mechanism to capture and store the raw energy nor a mechanism to convert the raw energy into usable energy for doing work and then putting the energy to use. Conclusion: Evolution has absolutely no scientific evidence to support its claim that life has originated by random chance. It is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one, and adherents must embrace it by concocted suppositions and sheer faith. This fact and the scientific evidence contrary to evolution is being vehemently suppressed to further a blind faith of a religious dogma that cloaks itself as science.