THE GLUE WHICH HOLDS THE UNPROFITABLE THEORY OF EVOLUTION TOGETHER IS UNDONE.

In 1981, the State of Arkansas passed a law (Act 590) requiring a balanced treatment of creation science with evolution science in the public classrooms. The A.C.L.U., "American Civil Liberties Union," a prominent camaraderie that has successfully obstructed the cause of Christians on several fronts, filed litigation in the Federal District Court to prevent its implementation. The merits of the suit-called "Scopes II"-were not singularly a constitutional issue per se and were reduced to two major confrontations: (1) is creation science really science; that is, established on an accountable scientific basis; or (2) is it merely religious fundamentalism supported only by the histories preserved in the Bible and faith by its advocates in said testimonies?

The balanced treatment issue was resolved by the court's redefining of the accepted usage of science, originally defined as "the state or fact of knowing; knowledge."

Science is currently held to be "the systematized observation, identification, description, and experimental investigation of phenomena." To the basic sense was applied the court's ruling of a more comprehensive language.

The following assertion incorporates a reasonable exhibition of the determination and attitude of the court: science is that which scientists are generally associated with and perform. Simply stated, the criteria by which knowledge may be chalked up as science incorporates one or more of the listed factors:

1. Science is spearheaded by renown scientists.

2. Science is performed in accepted scientific laboratories.

3. Science is funded by governments, colleges, and universities.

4. Science is taught in public classrooms.

5. Science is published in scientific papers and journals.

6. Science is routinely presented in the media, to include televised nature documentaries.

7. Science is any other entity that draws from the basic philosophies and presuppositions espoused by the expressed units.

The aforementioned entities represent a shutout; the court's criteria leave little latitude for divine intervention or the miraculous and, hence, any creationist views on the origins of man and the universe. The ruling of the court was summary: since creation science is neither associated with nor performed by court-accepted scientific entities, creation science is not science but religion and religion, as determined by the Supreme Court, may not be taught in the public schools.

A subsequent balanced treatment act from the State of Louisiana was heard by the Supreme Court in 1987. Justice William Brennan, in the majority opinion, concluded that creation science is "religion" and religion, as ruled, may not be instructed in the public classrooms. The barring of creation science, however, is not irreconcilable. The high court left open the possibility that any views on origins, be it creation or otherwise, may be taught if established on sound scientific principles. Therefore, if creation science (Intelligent Design) were founded on a scientific basis, drawing from a continuum of defensible, established truths, it would be justly qualified as science and science may be taught in the public classrooms.

Although evolutionists seized the moment, finding favor with a sympathetic judiciary, the battle for the minds and souls of the innocents in the classrooms is far from conclusive. Fielding the issue once again, the definition of science, "that which scientists are generally associated with and perform," is re-evaluated in The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, so as to determine if said definition is arguably correspondent or else gravely overstated.

Bear in mind that the backbone of obstructionism is not evolution per se, but "electronic interpretation," the tenet that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics. Again, the philosophy rejects any divine intervention. Therefore, let the philosophy of obstructionism be judged on these specifics: (1) "electron interpretation" and 2) "quantum mechanics." Conversely, the view of Christians that God is both responsible for and rules all the phenomena of the universe will stand or fall when the facts are applied. The view, however, will not be tested by the definition of science, as before determined by the court, but by the weightier principle of verifiable truths.

The Quest for Right has accomplished that which heretofore was thought impossible: to level the playing field between those who believe in creationism and those who preach evolution. You will not want to miss the adventure of a lifetime that awaits you in Volume 1 of The Quest for Right. I am the author, C. David Parsons. Visit the official website for additional information: http://questforright.com/

I'm going to assume from the post above that C. David Parsons is on the side of the creationists here. I would like to point out Mr. Parsons that you typed your diatribe on a computer. That computer uses semiconductors. Semiconductors work because Quantum Mechanics works. So, if, as I assume, you do not believe that quantum mechanics is a real and valid scientific theory, one of the most tried and proven theories we have I might add, then I suggest turning off your computer now and stopping blogging with a tool in which you do not believe.

For the rest of us that actually like our technology and realize that it was given to us by science, not by a mythical desert war god, we should applaud any attempt to expunge religion from our public schools. We should applaud the first amendment to the constitution of the United States of America. We should oppose all attempts by the extremists of this country that would distort the very meaning of the word science and catapult us into a new Dark Age.

Mr. Parsons and your ilk, I would strongly suggest that you avoid using any technology not mentioned in the bible. For, it is clear that you do not believe it really works anyway.

C.David Parsons,Were you asleep in science class? Did you not know that the Arkansas case you mentioned said that creationism is religion, not science and evolution is science not religion. That the recent Dover case said that Intelligent Design is another name for creationism and is not science. That National Association of Sciences said that evolution is not anti-god,but science.

Thanks evolution for the intelligence that Mr. Scott has - and how he applies it with wisdom! I completely agree that Mr. Parsons should stop using any of the advances brought to us by science: electricity, cars, combustion engines in general, large scale agriculture and animal husbandry, planes, boats, ships, cameras, even pens! And, of course, computers, printers, faxes, telephones, cell phones, ipods, television, movies, dentistry, medicine, life-saving drugs, gramophones even! How far back would he have to go to find human societies without scientific contributions? Heck, even the northern tribes that invaded Asia at the end of the Neolithic, who were barbarians of the worse kind, knew the wheel and how to make iron (although they didn't know how to write).

I just hope that people like Mr. Parsons don't reproduce. Gee, Can you say Darwin Awards?

Furthermore, I would like to say that many things we take for granted these days are "mere" scientific theories, such as oh, say, gravity! Although we all know we are not floating about weightlessly, some would like to call it a "mere" theory.

Evolution is pure science based on observation and analisys. Creationism or intelligent design is clearly religion since it is based on faith and dogmas (unprovable "truths" that just have to be accepted cause they say they have to).

If you want to teach your children your religion, you are welcome to do that at home or in your religious establishment, but you have no right to impose your beliefs on MY children through public school, for which I pay through taxes. So, those people who believe in intelligent design or creationism don't need to fear scientific folks, they just need to leave them alone. Nobody is telling any of you to stop believing in the tooth fairy or god or whatever, just leave the rest of us alone! ... Pretty please?

http://southerncrossreview.org/56/refuting-darwin.htm

To presuppose the creationist hypothesis requires one of the weakest epistemological frameworks for explaining natural phenomena. While evolution will always have intermediate fossil gaps and unanswered questions, one need not discount the theory simply because science's quest for future discovery continues. The advent of genetics and radio carbon dating solidly corroborates the anatomical and geographical evidence Darwin used to develop the theory. Intelligent Design and Creationism should be examined as should any competing hypothesis, however in comparison with the wealth of evidence in support of natural selection via gradual and random mutation the "creator" explanation suffers from a deep deficiency of evidence to be considered viable.

Is anyone familiar with Occam's Razor? See below:

"All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities.

Constructing Earth in 6 days through magical metaphysical powers leaves us with more questions and fewer answers. Therefore we would be wise to seek the best model to understanding our natural world despite its incompleteness.

Mr. Parson's post provides a fine first comment for this article. Couldn't help noticing two things.

First, Parson's belabored and tortuous attempt to retrieve the escaped monkey of science-in-belief was a striking contrast to the plain and brief points in the article. Occam, if none other, points out that brevity is a pretty reliable indicator of truth in a contested field of inquiry.

Second, Parson's attempts to make space for creationism were all but obfusticated by his own tortured logic. By the end of his commentary, he had himself presented several air-tight arguments against considering creationism to be at all scientific in nature, but was still trying to get in some sharp tool to pop the seal. I suppose he thinks he's cultivated an air of "accountability" by quoting the "opposition's" arguments first; but he follows with a nothing much attempt at rebuttal that would convince no one but a fellow creationist who also has no idea what science is.

And that's the crux of the creation movement's endurance: that creationists, and their latter-day painted whore "Intelligent" Design, have no idea what makes science science. They can't be convinced of anything science-based at all, because to them the word only means what they want it to mean, just like the rest of their canon. If they had any real concept of causality or proof, there is plenty in the Bible that would put lie to the basics of their faith.

Indeed, what they think of as reason is instead based on the mysteries of faith. Sermon after sermon, they are enjoined not to question "the Ways of the Lord." If their faith happens to slip a bit, it's not to be considered that there might be an objective reason or two to doubt the toxic God-cant they swill down. No, if they doubt what the preacher pushes, the fault is in themselves.

Since such episodes of doubt are called a "Crisis of Faith," it's obvious to them that the fault lies not in the target of the doubt, but in the doubter him/herself. How can you win against such "logic?" The very concept of reasoned enquiry is meaningless in such a context: if you ask any question that leads outside of the faith-legitimized arena, you are out-of-bounds and invalid.

Seeing it that way allows amazing logical contortions, such as defining belief as "tested" knowlege, because it has passed their own questioning doubt and is again taken on faith.

Parsons: good luck defining willfull ignorance as knowlege. You go, dude! This'll get you to "heaven" for sure. Say hi to the Big Guy for me. Tell Him I'm still thinking for myself.

Dover Pa trial
ID vs Evolution

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Intelligent Design case
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5067652

Breathtaking Inanity': How Intelligent Design Flunked Its Test Case
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1142625,00.html

Judgement Day
Nova program
Streaming video of the program documenting the trial in which ID was declared to be a religious concept - creationism renamed , deceitfully in order to have it taught in public schools.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

more about it here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

Well-said.Now if only the creationists, would just shut up and listen to reason.Oh wait,I forgot they only listen to God.

THE STARK headline appeared just over a year ago. "2007 to be 'warmest on record,' " BBC News reported on Jan. 4, 2007. Citing experts in the British government's Meteorological Office, the story announced that "the world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007," surpassing the all-time high reached in 1998.

more stories like this
War and peace with the environment
Gore completes renovations to Tenn. home
Gore: US blocking climate talks progress
Keys, Thurman among Nobel concert celebs
Gore accepts Nobel Prize, calls for action
But a funny thing happened on the way to the planetary hot flash: Much of the planet grew bitterly cold.

In South America, for example, the start of winter last year was one of the coldest ever observed. According to Eugenio Hackbart, chief meteorologist of the MetSul Weather Center in Brazil, "a brutal cold wave brought record low temperatures, widespread frost, snow, and major energy disruption." In Buenos Aires, it snowed for the first time in 89 years, while in Peru the cold was so intense that hundreds of people died and the government declared a state of emergency in 14 of the country's 24 provinces. In August, Chile's agriculture minister lamented "the toughest winter we have seen in the past 50 years," which caused losses of at least $200 million in destroyed crops and livestock.

Latin Americans weren't the only ones shivering.

University of Oklahoma geophysicist David Deming, a specialist in temperature and heat flow, notes in the Washington Times that "unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007." Johannesburg experienced its first significant snowfall in a quarter-century. Australia had its coldest ever June. New Zealand's vineyards lost much of their 2007 harvest when spring temperatures dropped to record lows.

Closer to home, 44.5 inches of snow fell in New Hampshire last month, breaking the previous record of 43 inches, set in 1876. And the Canadian government is forecasting the coldest winter in 15 years.

Mr Parsons, you sound unhappy that religion in the form of creationism isn't taught in science class. Funny thing - I don't hear many scientists whining that science isn't taught in bible class. I have yet to hear an English teacher bemoan the fact that grammar and spelling aren't taught in music class. Science class isn't the place to teach religion, any more than gym is the place to teach welding. Science class is the forum to learn about science, which can also be summed up as a set of theories to explain the universe as we see it, tested, with those tests consistently repeatable by others. Creationism fails on several counts. You want kids to learn creationism? Fine by me. That's something church and pastors are good for.

You are right Mr. Parsons. Most of these posters are atheists and their religion is intolerant. Marxism killed over 150million people. This is where atheism leads. It is a failed ideology. The Holy Spirit winds are blowing across Asia, Africa and South America, where most of the world's people live. The atheist's reproduction rate is below the replacement rate. From a Darwinian perspective, they will soon die out. "Every knee will bow."

Sorry Pastor LJ. You're wrong. The latest studies indicate that people are moving more away from religion. Not necessarily Athiesm but mostly non-denominationaly faith systems. That is non-church attending. Non-religious do not reproduce to produce more people of their beliefs like religions direct their faithful.
Personally, I am a person of deep faith. Not adhering to a particular religion/sect but a person who has God and Jesus as their rock and foundation. But I cannot accept that any religion can have a place in science or government except at a personal level. And I love Athiests. Athiests are not phasing out. They can never breed out. As societies move forward and the populace becomes better educated, the more Athiests it will have. It's part of the freedom of choice granted by our Creator. Frankly Pastor, your lack of faith in Jesus as evidenced by animosity towards others beliefs is sad. Athiests have an excuse. Pastors of Christianity should know better. I'll pray for you along with the Athiests.

Marx condemned the sexual freedom advocated by Fourier and Saint-Simon as a relapse into a "bestial" state of "universal prostitution". Engels condemned homosexuality among men of ancient Greece in two separate passages of The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, describing it as "morally deteriorated", "abominable", "loathsome" and "degrading". Marx apparently shared Engels' views, writing that "the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being" and describing the author of a text promoting sexual freedoms as "that queer prick" ("Schwanzschwulen"). According to the socialist writers Hekma, Oosterhuis and Steakley, Marx and Engels saw any form of sexuality outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage as a kind of degeneracy fostered by capitalism, which could be cured by socialism. According to Engels, "natural moral principles" would flourish in the socialist future, when (heterosexual) "monogamy, instead of declining, finally becomes a reality — for the man as well, and homosexuality would simply disappear.
August Bebel's Woman under Socialism (1879), the "single work dealing with sexuality most widely read by rank-and-file members of the SPD," was even more explicit in warning socialists of the dangers of same-sex love. Bebel attributed "this crime against nature" in both men and women to sexual indulgence and excess, describing it as an upper-class, metropolitan and foreign vice. Marxist theory is that Homosexuality goes against natural law and therefore will be eliminated in a socialist state.

Marcela,

Thank you very much for the high compliment. Unfortunately, due to a misunderstanding, the religious breed like rabbits. The line was supposed to be 'be useful and multiplex'. This misunderstanding has caused humans to overrun the limited resources on this planet.

Pastor Leroy Jones,

1) Atheism is not a religion you complete and utter moron. Atheism is simply the unwillingness to give credence to hypotheses for which there is no single shred of evidence. Why god? Why not the Great Pumpkin? Both have equal evidence in support of them, i.e. none.

2) It is breeding like rabbits that will be the death of our species, not a decline in population, which would actually be necessary for our survival.

We are already past peak grain. Corn, wheat, and rice are all being produced in reduced quantities. Ocean fisheries output has been in decline since about 1983, despite improved fishing technology. With reduced food and increasing population, I think it is obvious that our numbers will be reduced.

Lastly, it is genuinely true, regardless of your bible, that a universe in which one could pray to god for temporary suspension of the laws of physics would be DEMONSTRABLY different than the one in which we live. So, even if the god of the deists existed, there can be no personal god. Were there one, the laws of physics would be noticeably and measurably inconsistent based on responses to the numerous prayers of the moronic sheeple. Since they are not, no personal god exists.

P.S. Where exactly do you see Marxism coming into this. Atheism does not imply Marxism in any way shape manner or form.

You are right Scott. Marxism is Jewish. The Jews made up 25% of the Soviet Union leadership in their Holocaust of 80million Christians. Ever notice the high percentage of Jews in the American Communist Party? Freud, and psychology is also a Jewish religion along with Marxism. Look at all the Jews that have their PHD in psychology, close to 40% of that religion. Only 10% of the Jews(Orthodox) follow the religion, the rest are atheists and into Marxism and psycology(both atheist religions).

Gunther,

I think you just failed your IQ test.

Marxism is a failed system of finance. It is not a racial thing. It is not a religious thing. It is purely about economics. And, it doesn't work.

Perhaps when you can work the bigotry out of your pea sized brain, you can double your IQ ... to 2.

Misanthropic, you live up to your name. Facts are facts.

Thanks for the compliment Gunther and for the reminder of why I hate humanity. Facts are facts. Let me know when you find some you bigoted moran. Perhaps this is you.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-moran.htm

Hitler was also a Misanthropic.

Gunther,

You are a moran and you lose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Scott,so Jews can be Misanthropic?

The Finnish eco-philosopher Pentti Linkola is considered as the most influential misanthrope currently living. He has openly advocated genocide as means of population control, Social Darwinism to promote euthanasia campaigns for extermination of life unworthy of living, execution of doctors keeping stillborns alive and Plato-style aristocracy as form of governance to keep living standards low enough for sustainable ecology.

George,

Why ask me?! I'm an atheist and antitheist.

I imagine that believers in any of the subsects of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion will not be misanthropic. To be misanthropic and to believe that we are created in god's image would be to hate god.

The narcissistic insecure desert war god followed by billions would never allow that.

Even I don't hate god, since one cannot hate that which one does not believe in. However, I do hate much that has been done in the name of god.

Sounds to me that the Finn, Linkola is a radical environmentalist, a little left of brother Al. Doesn't matter, it will not be by fire, but by ICE.