| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dana" |
| Date: |
22 Dec 2005 10:02:24 PM |
| Object: |
Give Me That Old Time Evolution |
http://www.iconsofevolution.com/embedJonsArticles.php3?id=2933
Give Me That Old Time Evolution:
A Response to the New Republic
Jonathan Wells
In a recent article in The New Republic,1 University of Chicago evolutionary
biologist Jerry A. Coyne writes:
Exactly eighty years after the Scopes "monkey trial" in Dayton, Tennessee,
history is about to repeat itself. In a courtroom in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania in late September, scientists and creationists will square off
about whether and how high school students in Dover, Pennsylvania will learn
about biological evolution.
But Coyne leaves out one important detail. Eighty years ago in Tennessee,
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued to permit the teaching of
Darwinian evolution. Today in Pennsylvania, the ACLU is suing to prohibit
the teaching of anything but Darwinian evolution.
In 2004, the Dover (PA) school board decided that students studying
Darwinian evolution should be informed that there is a competing theory
called intelligent design (ID). Students are not required to learn anything
about ID; they are simply told that there is a book about it in the school
library, and they are encouraged to keep an open mind.
That was too much for the ACLU. And Jerry Coyne.
Coyne's lengthy essay condemning the Dover policy makes essentially two
points: (1) "Intelligent design, or ID, is the latest pseudoscientific
incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of
enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions." (2) "Evolution has
graduated from theory to fact. We know that species on earth today descended
from earlier, different species, and that every pair of species had a common
ancestor that existed in the past. Most evolutionary change in the features
of organisms, moreover, is almost certainly the result of natural
selection."
Yet Coyne's article reveals that he doesn't understand ID. And his
fossilized arguments in favor of evolution require leaps of faith that would
give a martyr pause.
What Intelligent Design Is--And Isn't
ID maintains that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that some
features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause
rather than unguided natural processes.
Three things are noteworthy about this description of ID. First, design is
inferred from evidence, not deduced from scripture or religious doctrines.
All of us make design inferences every day, often unconsciously. ID attempts
to formulate our everyday logic in terms rigorous enough to warrant
inferences from the evidence in nature. This is clearly not the same as
biblical creationism.
Second, ID doesn't explain everything in terms of design. There is still
room for chance and necessity. Furthermore, ID does not claim that design
must be optimal; something may be designed even if it is flawed. Nor does ID
purport to explain everything in the history of life; extinction, among
other things, may be undesigned.
Third, ID does not tell us the identity of the designer. Although most
proponents of ID believe that the designer is the God of the Bible, they
acknowledge that this belief goes beyond the evidence in nature.
Critics object that the designer has to be supernatural, therefore ID is
inherently religious rather than scientific. But some ID proponents maintain
that the designer does not have to be supernatural. And even if the designer
were supernatural, ID in this respect would be no more religious than
Darwinism; both have implications for theism. According to Richard Dawkins,
by showing that design is an illusion, Darwin made it possible to be an
intellectually fulfilled atheist; on the other hand, by showing that design
is real, ID makes it possible for some people to be intellectually fulfilled
theists. If the former is scientific, why isn't the latter?
In his essay, Coyne begins by criticizing young-Earth creationism, though
anyone who has read the writings of ID proponents knows that ID is not
young-Earth creationism. Coyne then declares that ID is "merely the latest
incarnation of the biblical creationism espoused by William Jennings Bryan
in Dayton," and he proceeds to criticize biblical creationism under the
illusion that he is thereby criticizing ID.
For example, Coyne thinks that "IDers believe" that the designer created
"major forms ex nihilo" and "instantaneously created species that thereafter
remain largely unchanged." He also assumes that vestigial remnants of past
species count against ID: "An appendix is simply a bad thing to have. It is
certainly not the product of intelligent design." Furthermore, he states,
"Creationists make a serious mistake when using the absence of transitional
forms as evidence for an intelligent designer. When such fossils are found,
as they often are, creationists must then punt and change their emphasis."
Finally, Coyne argues that Galápagos finches and Hawaiian fruit flies "point
to one explanation: Species on islands descend from individuals who
successfully colonized from the mainland and subsequently evolved into new
species." This last point, Coyne claims, "has always been the Achilles' heel
of creationists."
Yet none of these has any bearing on intelligent design. A designer does not
have to create ex nihilo or instantaneously (after all, human designers
don't). Some features may, indeed, be vestigial remnants of past species;
the fossil record may, indeed, contain transitional forms; and some species
may, indeed, be descended from a common ancestor. What do these have to do
with ID's modest assertion that some features of the natural world may be
detectably designed? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Just because Coyne says he's criticizing ID, that doesn't mean he is. What
he's really doing is trotting out the same tired old arguments against
biblical creationism that Darwinists have been using for 150 years. Coyne
simply doesn't realize that intelligent design is not biblical creationism.
His arguments are like punches thrown at an imaginary opponent by a boxer
warming up for a fight. What does he do when another boxer actually enters
the ring?
Let's see.
Criticizing The Evidence For ID--Or Not
Coyne confronts in detail only one ID proponent in his essay: Lehigh
University biochemist Michael J. Behe. In his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box:
The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Behe quotes Darwin: "If it could be
demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have
been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would
absolutely break down."
Behe then asks: "What type of biological system could not be formed by
'numerous, successive, slight modifications'?" And he answers: "Well, for
starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex, I
mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts
that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the
parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
As the title of Behe's book indicates, the inner workings of the cell were a
mystery (a "black box") for Darwin. Modern biochemistry, however, has
uncovered many irreducibly complex systems inside living cells. Not only do
these pose a problem for Darwin's theory, but they also point to design:
"Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is
a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science. It
comes simply from the hard work that biochemistry has done over the past
forty years, combined with a consideration of the way in which we reach
conclusions of design every day."
One of the examples of irreducible complexity described by Behe is the
biochemistry of vision, which involves a series of specialized molecules
that detect and amplify light impulses. All of the molecules must be present
and interacting in order for the system to function at all.
In response to Behe, Coyne devotes six long paragraphs to arguing that the
anatomy of the eye could have evolved step by step. Yet Behe's argument is
based on biochemistry, not anatomy. "It is no longer enough," Behe wrote,
"to consider only the anatomical structure of whole eyes, as Darwin did in
the nineteenth century (and as popularizers of evolution continue to do
today). Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant to the question of whether
evolution could take place on the molecular level."
In other words, Coyne's attempt to refute ID with a discussion of eye
anatomy is beside the point, like the flailing of a punch-drunk boxer. His
only jab at Behe's actual argument is the following: "Biochemical systems
evolved in the same way that the eye evolved, by adding parts successively
and adaptively to simpler, functioning systems."
That's it. No evidence. Simply an unsupported assertion that "biochemical
systems evolved." Why should we believe that? Because a professor at The
University of Chicago says so? Is that how science works?
So Coyne fails to land even one punch. In his unsuccessful attempt to refute
the positive case for ID, however, Coyne concludes: "Insofar as
intelligent-design theory can be tested scientifically, it has been
falsified." This is bad news for those Darwinists who insist that ID is
unscientific because it is untestable and unfalsifiable: A theory cannot be
both untestable and tested, both unfalsifiable and falsified.
Not to worry, though. "The final blow to the claim that intelligent design
is scientific," writes Coyne, "is its proponents admission that we cannot
understand the designer's goals or methods." Fortunately for the Darwinists,
Coyne can understand the designer's goals and methods. He claims to know,
for example, that "a creator, especially an intelligent one, would not
bestow useless tooth buds, wings, or eyes on large numbers of species."
Like Darwin himself, Coyne defends evolution by arguing that a designer
would not have done things in certain ways. "Would an intelligent designer
create millions of species and then make them go extinct, only to replace
them with other species, repeating this process over and over again? Would
an intelligent designer produce animals having a mixture of mammalian and
reptilian traits, at exactly the time when reptiles are thought to have been
evolving into mammals? Why did the designer give tiny, non-functional wings
to kiwi birds?" And so on.
But how can Coyne know what an intelligent designer would or would not have
done -- especially when he's convinced that such a designer doesn't even
exist? If Darwinism is scientific, why doesn't Coyne simply support it with
sufficient evidence?
Well, he tries; but the results are not impressive.
Why The "Overwhelming" Evidence For Evolution Isn't
Coyne writes: "The fossil record is the most obvious place to search for
evidence of evolution." The record shows, among other things, "the staggered
appearance of groups that become very different over the next 500 million
years" after the major animal groups ("phyla") appear in the Cambrian
explosion. Coyne also cites embryological evidence from vestigial structures
and biogeographical evidence from oceanic islands (mentioned above).
"In the last 150 years," Coyne writes, "immense amounts of new evidence have
been collected about biogeography, embryology, and, especially, the fossil
record. All of it supports evolution." Coyne concludes: "And so, evolution
has graduated from theory to fact. We know [his emphasis] that species on
earth today descended from earlier, different species, and that every pair
of species had a common ancestor that existed in the past." Indeed, "It
makes as little sense to doubt the factuality of evolution as to doubt the
factuality of gravity."
By "evolution" in these passages, Coyne means Darwin's notion that all
living things are descended from one or a few common ancestors. Forget for a
moment that this may have no relevance to intelligent design: Michael Behe,
for example, has no quarrel with common ancestry. But note Coyne's choice of
words: "all" of the evidence supports common ancestry, which is as much a
"fact" as gravity, so "we know" that it's true.
Contrast this with the observations of Henry Gee, another Darwinist and a
science writer for the journal Nature. In his 1999 book In Search of Deep
Time, Gee wrote: "No fossil is buried with its birth certificate." It's hard
enough, with written records, to trace a human lineage back a few hundred
years, and "the intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we
cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through
ancestry and descent." Gee concluded: "To take a line of fossils and claim
that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be
tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime
story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."
Gee doesn't doubt common ancestry, but since it's impossible to infer it
from the fossil evidence he acknowledges that it's an assumption. Why, then,
does Coyne claim that common ancestry is on a par with gravity? If I pick up
something and then let it fall to the ground, am I assuming gravity or
watching it in action? If no one can possibly observe ancestry and descent
in fossil species, how can common ancestry be as "factual" as something all
of us can observe with our own eyes? Only by an impressive leap of faith.
Coyne continues by citing the fossil evidence for some evolutionary
transitions: "We now have transitional forms connecting major groups of
organisms, including fish with tetrapods, dinosaurs with birds, reptiles
with mammals, and land animals with whales." These fossil series are
consistent with common ancestry; but do they establish it as a fact?
In his 1990 book Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, Ohio State
University biologist Tim Berra used a series of Corvette automobile models
to illustrate how transitional fossils are used to infer ancestry and
descent: "If you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a
1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is
overwhelmingly obvious." This is what evolutionary biologists do with
fossils, he continued, "and the evidence is so solid and comprehensive that
it cannot be denied by reasonable people. " [Berra's emphasis]
Of course, what cannot be denied by reasonable people is that a series of
Corvette automobile models provides evidence for design, not unguided
evolution. So what can we infer from a series of transitional fossils? Not
much: Maybe they are due to Darwinian evolution, or maybe they are due to
intelligent design.
The uncertainty can be eliminated only if we know the cause. In the case of
automobiles, we know that the cause is intelligent design. Do we know the
cause in the case of living things?
Coyne thinks we do. "Most evolutionary change in the features of organisms,"
he writes, "is almost certainly the result of natural selection." Although
Darwin had no direct support for this, and argued largely from analogy with
domestic breeding, "biologists have now observed hundreds of cases of
natural selection, beginning with the well-know examples of bacterial
resistance to antibiotics, insect resistance to DDT, and HIV resistance to
antiviral drugs."
Funny, Coyne doesn't mention peppered moths, which used to be the classic
textbook example of natural selection in action. Before the industrial
revolution most peppered moths were light-colored; but when moth populations
near factories became predominantly dark-colored, Darwinian theory and some
experiments conducted in the 1950s suggested that it was because dark moths
were better camouflaged against pollution-darkened tree trunks and thus
protected from predatory birds. For decades, biology textbooks illustrated
this story with photographs of peppered moths on light and dark tree trunks,
until biologists in the mid-1980s discovered that peppered moths don't
normally rest on tree trunks. The photographs had been staged, often with
dead moths stuck on the desired background.
Coyne himself taught the peppered moth story for years, until he learned to
his embarrassment that it was a myth. "My own reaction," he wrote in Nature
in 1998, "resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of six,
that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas
Eve." Most biology textbooks now simply omit all mention of this
embarrassing episode.
Of course there are other (and better) examples of natural selection besides
the peppered myth. But do they come any closer to solving the Darwinists'
problem? Are genetic mutations and natural selection sufficient to account
for the appearance of design in living things, or is intelligent design
necessary? This is the heart of the controversy between Darwinism and ID.
Yet after devoting page after page to an irrelevant defense of common
ancestry, Coyne contents himself here with a few sentences listing some
standard examples of minor changes in existing species. He concludes: "The
strength of selection observed in the wild, when extrapolated over long
periods, is more than adequate to explain the diversification of life on
Earth."
But this is nothing more than a restatement of Darwin's theory that minor
changes within existing species, if given enough time, can lead to the major
changes we see in the history of life. In 1937, Darwinian geneticist
Theodosius Dobzhansky called the former "microevolution" and the latter
"macroevolution," and he acknowledged that the extrapolation from one to the
other was an "assumption." That assumption remains controversial to this
day.
For example, Darwinists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz and Rudolf Raff wrote in
Developmental Biology in 1996: "Genetics might be adequate for explaining
microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not
seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an
amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of
the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. The origin of species -- Darwin
's problem -- remains unsolved." In 2001, Darwinist Sean B. Carroll wrote in
Nature: "A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the
processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are
sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer
periods of life's history (macroevolution)." (These people hate it when I
quote them; but these are their words, not mine.)
Now here we are in 2005, and Coyne has nothing new to add. Although his own
research deals with mutation and selection in fruit flies, Coyne presents no
evidence here to justify the extrapolation from microevolution to
macroevolution, which remains as unsupported as ever. Coyne merely proclaims
magisterially: "We have realized for decades that natural selection can
indeed produce systems that, over time, become integrated to the point where
that appear to be irreducibly complex."
Again, no evidence. None at all.
Coyne and his fellow Darwinists love to chant that the evidence for
Darwinism is "overwhelming" -- and so it is, if we have to shovel it. How
could it be otherwise? For decades, Darwinism has enjoyed a
taxpayer-supported monopoly in the biological sciences. Scores of journals
dedicated to advancing it have churned out literally tons of articles.
Anyone who actually reads the literature of evolutionary biology with an
open mind, however, soon realizes that almost all of it simply assumes that
the theory is true. What is "overwhelming" is not the evidence, but the
faith it takes to call Darwinian evolution a fact even after 150 years of
failing to find much of any evidence for its core tenets.
This is why Darwinists cannot allow biology students to think critically
about evolution, much less to hear about alternative theories such as
intelligent design.
History Repeats Itself--But Doesn't
In Pennsylvania, the ACLU is now fighting for the exact reverse of what it
fought for in Tennessee, eighty years ago. Then the ACLU opposed censorship;
now it wants to impose it.
The times have changed, but Jerry Coyne has not. If "history is about to
repeat itself," as Coyne claims, it is not because of what's happening in
Pennsylvania, but because he and his colleagues are stuck in a mythical
past, locked in a battle between old-fashioned biblical creationism and
old-fashioned Darwinism. The former is not intelligent design, regardless of
how many times Coyne says it is. And the latter is, well, old. However
plausible it may have seemed 150 years ago, it is no longer plausible in the
light of modern biochemistry and cell biology. Coyne and his fellow
Darwinists may continue in their dogmatic slumbers, but science is moving
on.
The 1925 Tennessee trial became a byword largely because of the Hollywood
movie "Inherit the Wind" (1960). Now maybe someone should make a movie about
the 2005 Pennsylvania trial and call it "Inherit the Spin." The music could
be an adaptation of "Give Me That Old Time Religion" from the 1960 movie,
with Jerry Coyne and a chorus of ACLU attorneys singing:
Give me that old time evolution,
Give me that old time evolution,
Give me that old time evolution.
It's good enough for me.
It was good enough for Darwin,
It was good enough for Darwin,
It was good enough for Darwin,
So it's good enough for me.
It's become my religion,
It's become my religion,
It's become my religion,
And it's good enough for me.
You can't teach any other,
You can't teach any other,
You can't teach any other,
Darwin's good enough for me.
Give me that old time evolution,
Give me that old time evolution,
Give me that old time evolution.
It's good enough for me.
Endnotes
1Jerry A. Coyne, "The Case Against Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare
Not Speak Its Name," in The New Republic (August 22, 2005).
--
The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires] that
the will of the majority shall prevail.
George Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
The will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is the
only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes
err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived
Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be
rightful must be reasonable - the minority possess their equal rights which
equal law must protect
Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky " |
|
| Title: Re: Give Me That Old Time Toilet Boy |
22 Dec 2005 11:53:27 PM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
http://www.iconsofevolution.com/embedJonsArticles.php3?id=2933
Give Me That Old Time Evolution:
A Response to the New Republic
Jonathan Wells
In a recent article in The New Republic,1 University of Chicago evolutionary
biologist Jerry A. Coyne writes:
Exactly eighty years after the Scopes "monkey trial" in Dayton, Tennessee,
history is about to repeat itself. In a courtroom in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania in late September, scientists and creationists will square off
about whether and how high school students in Dover, Pennsylvania will learn
about biological evolution.
But Coyne leaves out one important detail. Eighty years ago in Tennessee,
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued to permit the teaching of
Darwinian evolution. Today in Pennsylvania, the ACLU is suing to prohibit
the teaching of anything but Darwinian evolution.
In 2004, the Dover (PA) school board decided that students studying
Darwinian evolution should be informed that there is a competing theory
called intelligent design (ID). Students are not required to learn anything
about ID; they are simply told that there is a book about it in the school
library, and they are encouraged to keep an open mind.
That was too much for the ACLU. And Jerry Coyne.
You mean it was too much for the *parents* of the students of Dover.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050822&s=coyne082205
...
Inevitably, the controversy went to the courts. Eleven Dover parents filed
suit against the school district and its board of directors, asking that
the "intelligent design" policy be rescinded for fostering "excessive
entanglement of government and religion, coerced religious instruction, and
an endorsement by the state of religion over non-religion and of one
religious viewpoint over others." The plaintiffs are represented by the
Philadelphia law firm of Pepper Hamilton, the Pennsylvania American Civil
Liberties Union, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State;
the defendants, by the Thomas More Law Center, a conservative Christian
organization in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Give Me That Old Time Evolution |
22 Dec 2005 11:33:06 PM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
http://www.iconsofevolution.com
*** terminating reading process: Exit code "***** detected"
A well-meaning hint "dana": At least put your links below the *****
quotes, this way you'll have a chance that we might read some two lines of
the nonsense. What you currently do is basically announcing in the very
first line "outrageous lies and assorted ***** to follow".
*chuckle*
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove,
And gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer,
And fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
Why I am not a christian:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus/nojebus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: Give Me That Old Time Evolution |
23 Dec 2005 02:25:01 AM |
|
|
In our last episode, <11qmvo0gqn1ofd1@corp.supernews.com>, the
lovely and talented Dana broadcast on alt.atheism:
ID maintains that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that some
features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause
rather than unguided natural processes.
So it might be possible if there were any evidence, but there is
none. It is not just that there is less evidence for ID, it is
that there is none at all. That is why it is religion and not
science.
Three things are noteworthy about this description of ID. First, design is
inferred from evidence,
A lie, since there is no evidence.
not deduced from scripture or religious doctrines.
Oh, I see, we are supposed to be so stupid that we don't see who
is behind it.
All of us make design inferences every day, often unconsciously. ID attempts
to formulate our everyday logic in terms rigorous enough to warrant
inferences from the evidence in nature. This is clearly not the same as
biblical creationism.
There isn't any evidence in nature, not a scintilla.
Third, ID does not tell us the identity of the designer. Although most
proponents of ID believe that the designer is the God of the Bible, they
acknowledge that this belief goes beyond the evidence in nature.
It sure does, because there is no evidence in nature. None.
Critics object that the designer has to be supernatural, therefore ID is
inherently religious rather than scientific. But some ID proponents maintain
that the designer does not have to be supernatural. And even if the designer
were supernatural, ID in this respect would be no more religious than
Darwinism; both have implications for theism. According to Richard Dawkins,
by showing that design is an illusion, Darwin made it possible to be an
intellectually fulfilled atheist; on the other hand, by showing that design
is real, ID makes it possible for some people to be intellectually fulfilled
theists. If the former is scientific, why isn't the latter?
Because one is supported by a large body of evidence and the
other has no evidence whatsoever.
--
Lars Eighner http://www.larseighner.com/
"With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects,
I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them"
-- Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: Give Me That Old Time Evolution |
29 Dec 2005 02:54:26 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:02:24 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
But Coyne leaves out one important detail. Eighty years ago in Tennessee,
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued to permit the teaching of
Darwinian evolution. Today in Pennsylvania, the ACLU is suing to prohibit
the teaching of anything but Darwinian evolution
No, they sued to block the teaching of ID because it is religion. If
a viable, competing theory of evolution gains credibility in the
scientific community, it will be taught along side or instead of
Darwin's theory as appropriate. ID/creationism does not qualify - not
viable, not credible, not scientific.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Give Me That Old Time Evolution |
29 Dec 2005 03:33:17 PM |
|
|
satyr wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:02:24 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
But Coyne leaves out one important detail. Eighty years ago in Tennessee,
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued to permit the teaching of
Darwinian evolution. Today in Pennsylvania, the ACLU is suing to prohibit
the teaching of anything but Darwinian evolution
No, they sued to block the teaching of ID because it is religion. If
a viable, competing theory of evolution gains credibility in the
scientific community, it will be taught along side or instead of
Darwin's theory as appropriate. ID/creationism does not qualify - not
viable, not credible, not scientific.
The ACLU in PA doesn't sue for anything other than
bio-shitheads from Three Mile Island.
Since they are morons, and should all be deported to California,
where they hire Miceal Jackson to do moron ***** for the ACLU.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: Give Me That Old Time Evolution |
01 Jan 2006 03:01:11 AM |
|
|
On 29 Dec 2005 13:33:17 -0800, "zzbunker@netscape.net"
<zzbunker@netscape.net> wrote:
satyr wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:02:24 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
But Coyne leaves out one important detail. Eighty years ago in Tennessee,
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued to permit the teaching of
Darwinian evolution. Today in Pennsylvania, the ACLU is suing to prohibit
the teaching of anything but Darwinian evolution
No, they sued to block the teaching of ID because it is religion. If
a viable, competing theory of evolution gains credibility in the
scientific community, it will be taught along side or instead of
Darwin's theory as appropriate. ID/creationism does not qualify - not
viable, not credible, not scientific.
The ACLU in PA doesn't sue for anything other than
bio-shitheads from Three Mile Island.
Since they are morons, and should all be deported to California,
where they hire Miceal Jackson to do moron ***** for the ACLU.
Are you aware that you are not making any sense?
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Give Me That Old Time Evolution |
01 Jan 2006 04:00:06 AM |
|
|
satyr wrote:
On 29 Dec 2005 13:33:17 -0800, "zzbunker@netscape.net"
<zzbunker@netscape.net> wrote:
satyr wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:02:24 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
But Coyne leaves out one important detail. Eighty years ago in Tennessee,
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued to permit the teaching of
Darwinian evolution. Today in Pennsylvania, the ACLU is suing to prohibit
the teaching of anything but Darwinian evolution
No, they sued to block the teaching of ID because it is religion. If
a viable, competing theory of evolution gains credibility in the
scientific community, it will be taught along side or instead of
Darwin's theory as appropriate. ID/creationism does not qualify - not
viable, not credible, not scientific.
The ACLU in PA doesn't sue for anything other than
bio-shitheads from Three Mile Island.
Since they are morons, and should all be deported to California,
where they hire Miceal Jackson to do moron ***** for the ACLU.
Are you aware that you are not making any sense?
Nobody can make sense with morons like Journalists, Lawyers,
and other Philosophic idiots that drop names like Satre.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: Give Me That Old Time Evolution |
01 Jan 2006 03:05:38 PM |
|
|
On 1 Jan 2006 02:00:06 -0800, wrote:
satyr wrote:
On 29 Dec 2005 13:33:17 -0800, " "
<> wrote:
satyr wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:02:24 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
But Coyne leaves out one important detail. Eighty years ago in Tennessee,
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued to permit the teaching of
Darwinian evolution. Today in Pennsylvania, the ACLU is suing to prohibit
the teaching of anything but Darwinian evolution
No, they sued to block the teaching of ID because it is religion. If
a viable, competing theory of evolution gains credibility in the
scientific community, it will be taught along side or instead of
Darwin's theory as appropriate. ID/creationism does not qualify - not
viable, not credible, not scientific.
The ACLU in PA doesn't sue for anything other than
bio-shitheads from Three Mile Island.
Since they are morons, and should all be deported to California,
where they hire Miceal Jackson to do moron ***** for the ACLU.
Are you aware that you are not making any sense?
Nobody can make sense with morons like Journalists, Lawyers,
and other Philosophic idiots that drop names like Satre.
Thanks for that observation, zzbunker. (Who's dropping Satre's name?)
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sanitys little helper" |
|
| Title: Re: Give Me That Old Time Evolution |
23 Dec 2005 03:30:51 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:02:24 -0900, Dana pasted:
A Response to the New Republic
Jonathan Wells
Lies are still lies if somebody else made them up and you are merely
repeating them.
--
Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow, we eat, drink and be merry.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Give Me That Old Time Evolution |
23 Dec 2005 06:49:46 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:02:24 -0900, Dana wrote:
http://www.iconsofevolution.com/embedJonsArticles.php3?id=2933 Give Me
That Old Time Evolution:
A Response to the New Republic
Jonathan Wells
<snip>
What Intelligent Design Is--And Isn't
ID maintains that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that
some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent
cause rather than unguided natural processes.
Stop right there; you have identified the crux of the problem. What does
"best explained" mean? To IDers, it means an explanation that
acknowledges the existence of God (aka "some intelligent entity"). No
further investigation is desired or needed. To someone who wants to
figure out how the world works, like a scientist, it means an explanation
that does not require magic, and relies only on impersonal, consistent
physical laws.
A creationist and a scientist went to see a magic show. The magician
sawed a woman in half. The creationist went home thinking that the
magician had great powers of the supernatural. The scientist asked, "How
did he do that?" Ten years later, the scientist knew how to produce a
convincing illusion that you are sawing a woman in half. The creationist
still thought the magician had great powers of the supernatural. Which
one of these people would you want teaching your kids how to think?
<snip>
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Give Me That Old Time Evolution |
23 Dec 2005 06:32:25 PM |
|
|
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.12.23.12.49.36.108904@stopspam.net...
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:02:24 -0900, Dana wrote:
http://www.iconsofevolution.com/embedJonsArticles.php3?id=2933 Give Me
That Old Time Evolution:
A Response to the New Republic
Jonathan Wells
<snip>
What Intelligent Design Is--And Isn't
ID maintains that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that
some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent
cause rather than unguided natural processes.
Stop right there; you have identified the crux of the problem.
That you are clueless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
