ACLJ vows to push ID as science

[Charlie Brown]

http://www.aclj.org/trialnotebook/read.aspx?id=89

There is a continuing controversy erupting throughout the United States regarding the teaching of evolution as fact in public schools around the country. During the original Scopes “Monkey Trial” in 1925, famed lawyer Clarence Darrow argued that denying the right to teach Darwinian evolution violated fundamental academic freedom. Now, some 80 years later, evolutionists argue that their theory should be the only one taught in schools. This issue of the origins of mankind is being decided by the courts. We have developed a comprehensive strategy to address this issue. In the coming weeks, I will be preparing a major editorial that will be released throughout the United States. We will also be filing briefs in these key cases in Georgia and Pennsylvania.

[davidinalameda]

1. this is just wrong

ID is a religious theory not a scientific one and I believe that this attempt would violate the 1st Amendment of establishment of religion

[Coastie for Truth]

2. Bull crap.

I hold a PhD in engineering and have patents on pathology lab equipment and methods -- and I say ID is "Shaygitz Science"

[Liberal Veteran]

3. ID is speculation and philosophy NOT science.

Period.

Scientific theory....

1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,
2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,
3. has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,
4. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, and
5. is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data.

ID is really none of those things.

[me b zola]

12. ID does not meet the criteria for scientific theory, you are correct

I have been arguing this point with someone for a while, now. We are both "Christians", but I am deeply disturbed when this stuff is being passed off as science. Is this the equivalent to burning books?? Allowing hocus-pocus into our children's science classrooms can not possibly have a positive effect on our children nor our society, as a whole.

[Norquist Nemesis]

4. This isn't the only thing on their agenda

Watched a small portion of them on Sunday night. They were discussing (preaching actually) the rights/freedom of speech of ministers being trampled all over for not being able to speak out on political issues.

They started spouting how it was all perfectly legal until 1954. They said ministers were responsible for the American Revolution and the birth of the nation because of how they were able to speak out about government and motivate the flock.

That's about the time I changed the channel. They'll take an apple, compare it to an orange, tell you they're both the same because it's a fruit.

[davidinalameda]

5. if they change it for all charitable groups

then I have no problem with it

BUT it would create loopholes big enough to drive a aircraft carrier through in the election funding laws

you're going to have unlimited donations to charities which will be used for political activities

[Kali]

6. Religion belongs in

freaking religion classes, not science. What the hell (?!) is wrong with these morans?

And if you can teach mythology in science class you better teach more than one.

[Ian David]

7. Can we put disclaimer stickers in bibles?

I mean, the ones we find in hotel rooms.

It would be wrong to do it in bookstores and churches (even though most churches are left un-locked during the day).

[Kali]

17. heh

This religion is does not have the sole (soul?) rights to "God" as at least two other claim rights to said entity. Furthermore various other religions and or belief systems exist. Reader is urged to explore other points of view inculding the reality of science and free thought.

[Ian David]

8. Just more "cramming the Fundamentalist Agenda down our throats"

They're trying to indoctrinate our children into their lifestyle against the wishes of parents who do not want our children taught those values.

We need to frame this debate in the same terms THEY use.

[The White Tree]

9. So what they are saying is -

From this link:

There are now literally hundreds of biologists, chemists, zoologists, physicists, anthropologists, molecular and cell biologists, and other scientists who are challenging the theory that Darwinian evolution is supported by all scientific evidence.

And yet from the same link:

In order to meet the challenge in the courtroom, we are going to have to develop the scientific evidence that points to intelligent design. If one looks at the complicated nature of the universe and the individual DNA of individuals, it is a logical to draw the conclusion that mankind was established by an intelligent creator.

So now they have formed a hypotheses and will seek to find the scientific evidence supporting it. Good for them. They should go do that and when they can present to the scientific community a theory that reaches even one-tenth of the support that Darwin's theory has then maybe they can have a place at the table.

Now Darwin spent about 20 years of observation and thought coming up with his theory so members of the ACLJ please don't come a calling with your theory that by your own admission you have no scientific proof for for another 20 years.

Incidentally, when you do come back with what you feel refutes Darwin's theory of evolution and proves the existence of God and his hand in evolution, please note what Charles Darwin wrote, “To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.”

So in the end the fruits of all your labor will likely be to prove Darwins theory which is not in the least inconsistent with the existence of God. Good luck and enjoy yourselves.

[todwest]

10. I'm more interested . . .

. . . in why this bunch of fuck-tards decided to name themselves the ACLJ. You don't think it might have anything to do with an attempt to confuse the public, do you?

Nah, just a coincidence, I'm sure.

[HereSince1628]

11. Oh the numbers, they got _hundreds_ hahahahah

"There are now literally hundreds of biologists, chemists, zoologists, physicists, anthropologists, molecular and cell biologists, and other scientists who are challenging the theory that Darwinian evolution is supported by all scientific evidence. These individuals hold doctorate degrees from such prestigious universities as Cambridge, Stanford and Cornell."

Well, although science works by consensus that is not the same thing as democracy. There have always been biologists who I refer to as apologists who accept evolution but still can square that up with belief in a God who decided to do it "that way." I personally know at least 2 dozen of these.

Moreover, virtually EVERY great university in the country has been embarrassed by graduating Ph D's in biological science who turn out to hold creationist views.

The appeals to popularity are examples of the fallacy known as argumentum ad numeram. The truthfulness of evolution is independent of mass support.

ID is not a serious threat evolutionary biologists have chewed on it and found it seriously wanting...

[ixion]

13. so, then, conversely, should we mandate evolution as part of

church?

Seems like this is what they're trying to do. :evilgrin:

[Bill McBlueState]

14. "literally hundreds" - ooh.

There are now literally hundreds of biologists, chemists, zoologists, physicists, anthropologists, molecular and cell biologists, and other scientists who are challenging the theory that Darwinian evolution is supported by all scientific evidence.

Even if we accept this statement as true, which is giving a group whose very name attempts to confuse the public a lot of credit, all this means is that, from tens of thousands of scientists working in at least six different fields, they've come up with two hundred who have some dispute, no matter how minor, with evolution as it's currently understood.

On the other hand, the National Council for Science Education has a list of over 500 guys named Steve who accept evolution. So if these radicals are trying to make some kind of majoritarian argument from authority, they have a lot of catching up to do.

[KissMeKate]

15. pat Robertson front group

this is their barely certified law school in Virginia Beach- they are also training conservative journalists.

[Ian David]

16. 4. American Center for Law and Justice: Right-wing Pat Robertson Group

American Center for Law and Justice: Right-wing Pat Robertson Group
Edited on Tue Feb-01-05 10:51 AM by IanDB1


Right Wing Organizations

American Center for Law and Justice
P.O. Box 64429
1000 Regent University Drive
Virginia Beach, VA 23467
www.aclj.org

Founder: Pat Robertson, founder of the 700 Club, Christian Coalition, Operation Blessing, Regent University
Date established: 1990
Executive Director/Chief Counsel: Jay Sekulow
Publications: Newsletter, education pamphlets, and reports.

<snip>

ACLJ’s Principal Issues:

# ACLJ is a legal advocacy group “dedicated to defending and advancing religious liberty, the sanctity of human life, and the two-parent, marriage-bound family.”

# ACLJ is a strong supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendment that would ban same-sex marriage.

<snip>

# ACLJ has been involved with more than 30 cases before the United States Supreme Court and has been successful in many of its lawsuits.

# The ACLJ challenges domestic partnership benefits for city and state employees, anti-discrimination ordinances that include sexual orientation, and generally fights against the right of gays and lesbians to be parents.

<snip>



# Two of the Supreme Court cases argued by Sekulow have become benchmark cases in the area of religious liberty litigation. In Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (496 US 226), Sekulow argued the right of public school students to form Bible clubs and religious organizations on their school campuses. In Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches School District, Sekulow defended the rights of religious groups to use public school property for religious meetings after hours.

# A few other examples of ACLJ cases: ACLJ defended a group of parents who drove a transsexual teacher out of her job in Minnesota, has supported a Kmart pharmacist who refused to dispense birth control pills, and has pursued litigation over various claims that children are being told that they cannot pray on school grounds or talk about their religion.

<snip>

About Jay Sekulow:

# Jay Sekulow helped draft the Defense of the Marriage Act, which passed both houses and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996. DOMA allows states to reject the legitimacy of same-sex marriage licenses awarded in other states, although, to this day no state offers marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Sekulow helped draft DOMA “at the request of several pro-family legislators, and gave expert testimony to both houses of Congress on this bill.” (Jay Sekulow, direct mail, March 1997)

More:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=7649