ACLU sues first school district to adopt "Intelligent Design"

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Czar
here is "proof" that humans have eveolved somewhat

There is a tribe somewhere in the pacific where everyone has different eyes, the tribe relies heavily on diving in the sea for food so instead of pupils in normal people where they ... shrink.. when in water their pupils expand ... or might have been the other way around, but the point is that they see alot better in water then anyone else and that is because they needed to because they had to survive


edt.
their pupils shrink while in water
http://www.divernet.com/news/stories/evolve060703.shtml

Careful - it's because someone at some time was born with eyes that worked like that, and due to the 'world' they were born in, those eyes gave them selective advantage. (At least, that's the evolutionary answer).

So they don't have them because they need them, they have them because they became available, and provided an advantage.

Correct alot of people screw-up the hourse and cart when it comes to evolution. The people didn't decided to change their eyes and they changed. But you should be careful about assuming that because they use their eyes to an advantage over other predators that their eyes change because of that advantage. For all we know some strange disease killed off the normal eyed people and the other peoples eye gene was near a gene that protected them from the disease.

 

[Czar]

ah yes quite correct, evolution is just random variation + survival of the fittest

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
Correct alot of people screw-up the hourse and cart when it comes to evolution. The people didn't decided to change their eyes and they changed. But you should be careful about assuming that because they use their eyes to an advantage over other predators that their eyes change because of that advantage. For all we know some strange disease killed off the normal eyed people and the other peoples eye gene was near a gene that protected them from the disease.

That's possible, of course. Parsimony demands that we don't assume such a coincidence though.

 

[burnedout]

Embarrassing ACLU Revelations - The New York Times

[Hat tip: The Sage of Knoxville]

The American Civil Liberties Union is using sophisticated technology to collect a wide variety of information about its members and donors in a fund-raising effort that has ignited a bitter debate over its leaders' commitment to privacy rights.

Some board members say the extensive data collection makes a mockery of the organization's frequent criticism of banks, corporations and government agencies for their practice of accumulating data on people for marketing and other purposes. . . .

The group's new data collection practices were implemented without the board's approval or knowledge, and were in violation of the A.C.L.U.'s privacy policy at the time, said Michael Meyers, vice president of the organization and a frequent and strident internal critic. Mr. Meyers said he learned about the new research by accident Nov. 7 in a meeting of the committee that is organizing the group's Biennial Conference in July.

He objected to the practices, and the next day, the privacy policy on the group's Web site was changed. "They took out all the language that would show that they were violating their own policy," he said. "In doing so, they sanctified their procedure while still keeping it secret."

Damn crooks.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: burnedout
Embarrassing ACLU Revelations - The New York Times

[Hat tip: The Sage of Knoxville]

The American Civil Liberties Union is using sophisticated technology to collect a wide variety of information about its members and donors in a fund-raising effort that has ignited a bitter debate over its leaders' commitment to privacy rights.

Some board members say the extensive data collection makes a mockery of the organization's frequent criticism of banks, corporations and government agencies for their practice of accumulating data on people for marketing and other purposes. . . .

The group's new data collection practices were implemented without the board's approval or knowledge, and were in violation of the A.C.L.U.'s privacy policy at the time, said Michael Meyers, vice president of the organization and a frequent and strident internal critic. Mr. Meyers said he learned about the new research by accident Nov. 7 in a meeting of the committee that is organizing the group's Biennial Conference in July.

He objected to the practices, and the next day, the privacy policy on the group's Web site was changed. "They took out all the language that would show that they were violating their own policy," he said. "In doing so, they sanctified their procedure while still keeping it secret."

Damn crooks.

crooks?

 

[PizzaYummy]

What right have the ACLU to sue a school district? What we need to do is get rid of suing altogether.
The ACLU is trying to keep information which is just scientific theory but every bit as accepted as the opposing theory out of kids grasp. Why not just teach the children both theories. It really doesn't affect anything if you believe one way or the other.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: PizzaYummy
What right have the ACLU to sue a school district? What we need to do is get rid of suing altogether.

is that a joke?

The ACLU is trying to keep information which is just scientific theory but every bit as accepted as the opposing theory out of kids grasp. Why not just teach the children both theories. It really doesn't affect anything if you believe one way or the other.

not scientific theory, not every bit as accepted. and yes, it does affect things... if ID is taught along side evolution, children will be misled to believe that it is somehow science.

 

[PizzaYummy]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: PizzaYummy
What right have the ACLU to sue a school district? What we need to do is get rid of suing altogether.

is that a joke?

The ACLU is trying to keep information which is just scientific theory but every bit as accepted as the opposing theory out of kids grasp. Why not just teach the children both theories. It really doesn't affect anything if you believe one way or the other.

not scientific theory, not every bit as accepted. and yes, it does affect things... if ID is taught along side evolution, children will be misled to believe that it is somehow science.

No that is not a joke. The ACLU has no grounds to sue a school district . Hopefully the suit just gets tossed on lack of merit. No it affects nothing if scientists, biologists whatever believe one theory or the other. No current science depends on evolution or ID to work. An electric motor depends on electrical engineering principles. Nothing depends on evolution. It can be proven false and it would not affect anything whatsoever.

 

[judasmachine]

maybe we should just teach that we have no freaking clue where we come from...

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Text

It's odd that the land of the blue-enlightened would permit something like this. Not only permit it, but be at the forefront of the adoption.

By the way, only Pittsburgh and Philadelphia (and their immediate suburbs) are heavily dem/blue, the remaining vast wastleland of Pennsylvania is primarily a backwards sheep-humping red zone.

😛

True of False? As a liberal you would support an individual's right to marry a sheep? So, therefore, it's the sheep in Philly that need to have eyes in the back of their head, no?

True or True? As a reactionary pinhead, with all the erudition and intelligence that implies, you think there are flocks of sheep in the city of Philadelphia.

I believe you are a product of unintelligent design.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
maybe we should just teach that we have no freaking clue where we come from...

I could agree with that.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: PizzaYummy

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: PizzaYummy
What right have the ACLU to sue a school district? What we need to do is get rid of suing altogether.

is that a joke?

The ACLU is trying to keep information which is just scientific theory but every bit as accepted as the opposing theory out of kids grasp. Why not just teach the children both theories. It really doesn't affect anything if you believe one way or the other.

not scientific theory, not every bit as accepted. and yes, it does affect things... if ID is taught along side evolution, children will be misled to believe that it is somehow science.

No that is not a joke. The ACLU has no grounds to sue a school district .

the ACLU is filing the lawsuit on behalf of the parents of 8 children in the school district. look at this way, the ACLU is providing legal services for the parents.

Hopefully the suit just gets tossed on lack of merit. No it affects nothing if scientists, biologists whatever believe one theory or the other. No current science depends on evolution or ID to work. An electric motor depends on electrical engineering principles. Nothing depends on evolution. It can be proven false and it would not affect anything whatsoever.

that's not really true. strategies for combating diseases, pest control, etc depend on evolution.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
isn't each successive generation having a +5 iq?

By definition, no. IQ is normalized per generation, so a score of 100 is the average at a given time. At least that's how I understand it.

For people that think ID is so outlandish, I posed a question in Highly Technical a while ago that I think is pertinent. Link

*cue someone coming in here to tell me I shouldn't brandish my political agenda where it's not welcome*
As far as evolution education goes, I have no agenda. Where we came from is one of those fundamental questions that someone should examine on their own and evaluate the relevant evidence to arrive at their own conclusions.

 

[0marTheZealot]

That's called the Flynn affect, and it's probably more due to that we are becoming better and better at those types of tests (pen, paper, time limits etc etc) because that is what is forced upon us in school. It could also be that we are getting better at reducing aberrant errors in the tests and thus getting closer to the actual true score of people.

It can not be explained by evolution, simply because evolution works on time scales unfathomable to us. The entirety of human history could easily fit in between the blink of an eye. 5,000 years (not 20,000) is about right for the written history of man.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: PizzaYummy
What right have the ACLU to sue a school district? What we need to do is get rid of suing altogether.

How much of the Bill of Rights do you want to eliminate? In addition to the issues of the separation of church and state and freedom of speech, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The ACLU is trying to keep information which is just scientific theory but every bit as accepted as the opposing theory out of kids grasp. Why not just teach the children both theories. It really doesn't affect anything if you believe one way or the other.

You have absolutely no understanding of the scientific defintion of the word, theory.

the'o-ry n.

1. A formulation of apparent relationships or unerdlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some extent.

2. 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.

It takes only one contradiction to disprove a theory. Got one?

The only "intelligence" in a speculative Trojan horse like in "Intelligent Design" is the directed, intentional effort by its proponents to cloud the definition of the word, theory with the more colloquial, less precise usage. The concepts presented by "Intelligent Design" are contradicted by the physical evidence of the history of this planet and the observed universe. It fails out of the gate as a scientific hypothesis or proposition.

Nothing depends on evolution. It can be proven false and it would not affect anything whatsoever.

Go ahead. You can settle the whole discussion for the entire world once and for all. All you have to do is prove it wrong. 😛