The Logic of the ACLU

[Jro]

heavens no, the death penalty is barbarism.

Agree, especially given the number of innocent people we've executed and the racial bias with which the death penalty is enforced.

 

[sandwiches]

There's no need to worry that malefactors will be inadequately punished...

Unless they become saved before dying.

 

[The Paul]

I think (and this is my opinion again), if you do something that takes away someone else's rights (murder, rape, kidnapping), you just lost your own rights as a consequence.

Sure, if we can do it.

For crimes like murder and rape my instinct is, again, to put the person away forever. It certainly poses a greater risk to the rest of us than drug use or theft.

But if we discover we don't have the capacity to put them all away forever, if we just hang on to them for 25 years to make sure they've been adequately punished then release them to re-offend, if a couple of years of house arrest and counselling/training prevents re-offense...

...well, then we're left with a choice between feeling good about how we deal with undesirable elements and protecting the population from murder and rape.

Maybe if we took a softer line on minor offenses it wouldn't be a choice we have to make. But whenever a politician talks about getting tough on crime some kid who skims a handful of twenties out of the register at work ends up with a ten year sentence or something stupid.

 

[The Paul]

If someone truly believes that evolution can not be tested, that it is someone's "personal opinion," that it is just a guess... it's not an argument for anything other than the effectiveness of fundamentalist efforts to render the population ignorant of the state of science.

I mean, whales have finger bones. What do you want?

 

[KarateCowboy]

If someone truly believes that evolution can not be tested, that it is someone's "personal opinion," that it is just a guess... it's not an argument for anything other than the effectiveness of fundamentalist efforts to render the population ignorant of the state of science.

I mean, whales have finger bones. What do you want?

Given they have no fingers, but those bones are in their flippers, then wouldn't that make them flipper bones?

 

[Larry Salamander]

Given they have no fingers, but those bones are in their flippers, then wouldn't that make them flipper bones?

Sure, just like bat fingers should be called wing bones:

Phalanges, schmalanges! Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If someone truly believes that evolution can not be tested, that it is someone's "personal opinion," that it is just a guess... it's not an argument for anything other than the effectiveness of fundamentalist efforts to render the population ignorant of the state of science.

I mean, whales have finger bones. What do you want?

I'm an evolutionist, someone who believes that evolution is far more rational than the ID/Creationism concept.

I truly believe it cannot be tested.

Can you present some results of tests they've done to prove evolution as a fact rather than a theory? Unless they've reproduced everything in the series of events that make up the theory of evolution, it hasn't been fully tested.

 

[sandwiches]

I'm an evolutionist, someone who believes that evolution is far more rational than the ID/Creationism concept.

I truly believe it cannot be tested.

Can you present some results of tests they've done to prove evolution as a fact rather than a theory? Unless they've reproduced everything in the series of events that make up the theory of evolution, it hasn't been fully tested.

What parts do you think cannot be tested, exactly?

And regarding the whole "fact" versus "theory" nonsense, please read this: http://notjustatheory.com/

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Not if one theory is well tested and well supported. I'll get back to how we do test evolution in a moment. Also, I think you should consider that the judge was a conservative, Lutheran judge appointed by George W. Bush; this was hardly the decision of a liberal activist, or the fault of an organization that pressed its will on an unhappy populace.

Evolution can be tested by the scientific method. There are logical conclusions that follow from these theories, and, if we were to find evidence that went against them in significant ways they would be overturned. I am not a physicist, but a grad student in biology, so I'd prefer to discuss things that I have a working knowledge of if that's ok with you (there are however some physicists in the Physical and Life Sciences board that would be better equipped to discuss the big bang theory).

From a theological perspective, a Lutheran would be liberal (in comparrison to a Baptist or Pentacostal) so that part doesn't really surprise me. As a conservative, I wouldn't refer to Bush as a fellow conservative as he often tried to usurp the constitution (I would say he tried to do it more than the democrats) ...but I digress

Yes, there are conclusions that follow some of the findings produced by science that strongly favor evolution, but I still wouldn't look at that as being 100% proof (so much so, that an organization wants to box everyone out of teaching an alternative).

Being that there isn't 100% proof, I just don't see how the government/courts can officially take a particular side in this one without even putting it to a vote of the people.

If they were willing to put it to a local-level vote, and have the majority rule, I'd accept whatever the outcome was. But, that's not what's happening. They slap us in the face by trying to go over our heads and bully the government into giving them what they want.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Here's where I'm going to switch it up a bit:
--------------------------------------------------------------

Now I might be wrong on this, but here's how the ACLU comes across to me... Anytime someone fights them on a particular issue they're backing, they immediately & incorrectly link the opposing side to religion so they can use their flawed interpretation of the 1st Amendment (by that I mean the whole "Separation of Church and State thing that's not even in the constitution) to get it thrown out.

...just like they do for Abortion (I figured I'd switch it up so that people don't get board with the thread going around in circles with the evolution topic - but still feel free to go back to that if you guys see fit or had other points you wanted to make)

Now, they constantly try to link the "pro-life" side of the debate to Christianity so they can complain that people's rights are being infringed on because of religion. Now on this particular issue, I'm an Atheist, but I'm anti-Abortion for the most part. I make rational concessions on cases of rape, the mother's life being in danger (because it wasn't any decision of their own that caused the situation) But other than that...I completely oppose it strictly due to the fact that I think it's irresponsible on the part of the person who's not taking the proper precautions.

Had a hard time finding really recent stats, but I was able to find this.


REASONS GIVEN FOR ABORTIONS: AGI SURVEY, 2004 [6]

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

Now, the areas that I agreed to make a concession in only make up a very small percentage of the reasons for getting an abortion, the rest all pertain to making a selfish personal choice IMO

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What parts do you think cannot be tested, exactly?

And regarding the whole "fact" versus "theory" nonsense, please read this: Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

Yeah, well I don't see how an article stating that's it fact proves anything. I could make my own webpage with a few bullet points and call it 100% proof too.

Looks like someone has already done this (and actually provided more backing statement than the webpage you posted)

See, I can do that too
Debunking Evolution - problems, errors, and lies of evolution exposed as false and wrong

Does that mean that the people who believe the way this article writer does are automatically correct? Of course not.

We can't observe the entire process start to finish, nor do we have and eyewitness accounts, nor do we have any historical writings of eyewitness accounts. So how someone could say for sure what happened billions of years ago is beyond me.

I think evolution is more probably than the talking snake in a tree story, but I'd never call evolution a fact or scientific law.

 

[AtheistVet]

I'm an evolutionist, someone who believes that evolution is far more rational than the ID/Creationism concept.

I truly believe it cannot be tested.

Can you present some results of tests they've done to prove evolution as a fact rather than a theory? Unless they've reproduced everything in the series of events that make up the theory of evolution, it hasn't been fully tested.

E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sandwiches]

Yeah, well I don't see how an article stating that's it fact proves anything. I could make my own webpage with a few bullet points and call it 100% proof too.

Looks like someone has already done this (and actually provided more backing statement than the webpage you posted)

See, I can do that too
Debunking Evolution - problems, errors, and lies of evolution exposed as false and wrong

Does that mean that the people who believe the way this article writer does are automatically correct? Of course not.

Obviously you didn't get the point of the page, which you didn't read. The point is that a theory isn't a guess and a fact isn't something that a theory graduates to when there's enough evidence.

We can't observe the entire process start to finish, nor do we have and eyewitness accounts, nor do we have any historical writings of eyewitness accounts. So how someone could say for sure what happened billions of years ago is beyond me.

And you're wrong in thinking this. We have, in fact observed evolution, but I have a feeling you specifically mean 'speciation,' which we have also observed.
Observed Instances of Speciation

I think evolution is more probably than the talking snake in a tree story, but I'd never call evolution a fact or scientific law.

A scientific "law?" In science, "laws," "facts," theories," and "hypotheses" are all different things and "facts" and "laws" aren't at the top of the hierarchy, like you're imagining. Theories never become laws or facts. However, laws, hypothesis, and facts can be part of theories.

Read this for more information, so you don't keep making the typical creationist mistake of "It's ONLY a theory!"
Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ThatRobGuy]

E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's an interesting study. I see where there are a lot of articles both supporting it and contradicting it. Almost looks like it could be it's own thead in the physical and life science forum.

The one part I do find a little odd is that if a scientist wanted to prove the theory of evolution as it pertains to humans, why was something from Kingdom Eubacteria selected rather than something from Kingdom Animalia (or at least another biological classification that's multicellular). My natural reaction would be to have doubts about this study since it's not done on anything closely related to a human.

I find it a bit suspect that E. coli was selected as the target for this study. From articles I'm finding, it's one of the easiest to manipulate in a lab so is it possible that some of these results were forced? Even if that's not the case, would a single cell mutation completely validate the entire theory of evolution? Or just make it a possibility?

To circle back around to the topic at hand, if these studies just make it a possibility but not 100% proven fact, does the ACLU have a right to encourage it to be taught over another theory that's not 100% proven? Even more than that, do they have a right to block other theories from being taught? (In terms of US law)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Obviously you didn't get the point of the page, which you didn't read. The point is that a theory isn't a guess and a fact isn't something that a theory graduates to when there's enough evidence.


And you're wrong in thinking this. We have, in fact observed evolution, but I have a feeling you specifically mean 'speciation,' which we have also observed.
Observed Instances of Speciation



A scientific "law?" In science, "laws," "facts," theories," and "hypotheses" are all different things and "facts" and "laws" aren't at the top of the hierarchy, like you're imagining. Theories never become laws or facts. However, laws, hypothesis, and facts can be part of theories.

Read this for more information, so you don't keep making the typical creationist mistake of "It's ONLY a theory!"
Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparently, in this case, it'd be the Atheist mistake of "It's only a theory" since I'm not a creationist.

I'm not on your side so now comes the part where I get accused of not reading the article you posted and it's time to start correcting me on misuse of vocabulary from the 10th grade science class.

If you haven't gotten it yet, I've been playing Devil's (or I guess in this case Christian's Advocate) because this thread isn't about the scientific aspect as much as it's about the Constitution and the ACLU. I realize that scientists have discovered some amazing things that strongly support evolution, but nobody has ever witnessed a single cell organism evolve into a human the same way nobody has ever witnessed anyone turn water into wine, raise someone from the dead, or walk on water. I would say the same thing to a Christian organization that tried to block a school from teaching evolution. If both have never been witnessed, then what gives ACLU the right to strongarm the government into blocking one side and allowing the other? (When there's clearly no constitutional grounds for them to do so)

 

[AtheistVet]

It's an interesting study. I see where there are a lot of articles both supporting it and contradicting it. Almost looks like it could be it's own thead in the physical and life science forum.

The one part I do find a little odd is that if a scientist wanted to prove the theory of evolution as it pertains to humans, why was something from Kingdom Eubacteria selected rather than something from Kingdom Animalia (or at least another biological classification that's multicellular). My natural reaction would be to have doubts about this study since it's not done on anything closely related to a human.

E.coli reproduce much quicker than any animal I know of, so it would be possible to documents the changes over thousands of generations.

I find it a bit suspect that E. coli was selected as the target for this study. From articles I'm finding, it's one of the easiest to manipulate in a lab so is it possible that some of these results were forced? Even if that's not the case, would a single cell mutation completely validate the entire theory of evolution? Or just make it a possibility?

His entire process is extensively documented and his data is available for scrutiny. If he fudged the data, every scientist will be chomping at the bit to show that.

Evolution has already been completely validated, this is just another reinforcement of that validation.

To circle back around to the topic at hand, if these studies just make it a possibility but not 100% proven fact, does the ACLU have a right to encourage it to be taught over another theory that's not 100% proven? Even more than that, do they have a right to block other theories from being taught? (In terms of US law)

Using that logic, we shouldn't stop teachers from teaching astrology and geocentrism either. Our entire understanding of modern biology rests on evolution being a fact, using an Olympus Mons of evidence and research. It's more well understood than gravity. Intelligent design and creationism is the flailing tantrum of denial and superstition, with no evidence, no research, and America is the only western country that still takes it seriously. The fact that this is a debate is a national embarrassment.

 

[AtheistVet]

Apparently, in this case, it'd be the Atheist mistake of "It's only a theory" since I'm not a creationist.

I'm not on your side so now comes the part where I get accused of not reading the article you posted and it's time to start correcting me on misuse of vocabulary from the 10th grade science class.

If you haven't gotten it yet, I've been playing Devil's (or I guess in this case Christian's Advocate) because this thread isn't about the scientific aspect as much as it's about the Constitution and the ACLU. I realize that scientists have discovered some amazing things that strongly support evolution, but nobody has ever witnessed a single cell organism evolve into a human the same way nobody has ever witnessed anyone turn water into wine, raise someone from the dead, or walk on water. I would say the same thing to a Christian organization that tried to block a school from teaching evolution. If both have never been witnessed, then what gives ACLU the right to strongarm the government into blocking one side and allowing the other? (When there's clearly no constitutional grounds for them to do so)

Why are the goal posts so far out? Why do we need to witness a single cell evolving into a human for evolution to be validated? Do we need a time machine in order to know the Civil War happened?

 

[AtheistVet]

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Why are the goal posts so far out? Why do we need to witness a single cell evolving into a human for evolution to be validated? Do we need a time machine in order to know the Civil War happened?

Because if we're going to allow the government and a 3rd party the right to step in and silence people, we better have a 100% absolute. It's the same way you or I would feel if a Christian organization stepped in and used their political influence to stop a teacher from teaching evolution based on a skewed interpretation of a core US document.

For example, I've heard some Christians say that since the founding fathers, by referencing a "creator" in the Declaration of Indepence, completely justify their position on creationism and think they get a free pass to a constitutional exemption. When I see that, they get the same 20 question routine that I've given in this thread.

As long as a teacher is fairly presenting both options and not slanting to one side or the other, they haven't infringed on anyone's rights nor have they made anyone adopt a core belief. If the parent decides they don't want their child to be in that class, that's up to them...but it's not the ACLU or the government's job to do that.

Am I the only one who sees a danger in letting an outside organization completely misuse the constitution for their own agenda and completely usurp the people?

 

[AtheistVet]

Because if we're going to allow the government and a 3rd party the right to step in and silence people, we better have a 100% absolute. It's the same way you or I would feel if a Christian organization stepped in and used their political influence to stop a teacher from teaching evolution based on a skewed interpretation of a core US document.

For example, I've heard some Christians say that since the founding fathers, by referencing a "creator" in the Declaration of Indepence, completely justify their position on creationism and think they get a free pass to a constitutional exemption. When I see that, they get the same 20 question routine that I've given in this thread.

As long as a teacher is fairly presenting both options and not slanting to one side or the other, they haven't infringed on anyone's rights nor have they made anyone adopt a core belief. If the parent decides they don't want their child to be in that class, that's up to them...but it's not the ACLU or the government's job to do that.

Am I the only one who sees a danger in letting an outside organization completely misuse the constitution for their own agenda and completely usurp the people?

No one is making it illegal to tell children about creationism, and religious schools and churches can teach it all they wish. You would have a point if evolution did not have an overwhelming amount of evidence and intelligent design had... well any at all. Teaching intelligent design is exactly the same as teaching Zeus throws lightning bolts and that an earthquake is the rumbling of an ancient troll that our world was built upon. You can't teach superstitious nonsense in a science class.

Fairly presenting both sides is teaching the facts of evolution, and then devoting maybe a portion of one day about talking intelligent design and why it's not supported by evidence.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You can't teach superstitious nonsense in a science class.

Fairly presenting both sides is teaching the facts of evolution, and then devoting maybe a portion of one day about talking intelligent design and why it's not supported by evidence.

They teach nonsense in other classes as well, why are we treating this any different? Listen to some of the information that gets fed to kids in history, civics, and sociology classes. They teach things that are false all of the time from outdated textbooks yet nobody has a problem with these (not to mention the vast amount of bogus classes that offer zero preparation for the real world or a career). That's not even touching on the other instances of nonsense that goes on in public schools like special treatment for atheletes.

ACLU is just targeting religion in this case, plain and simple. If making sure that students were getting proper info was their true goal, why aren't they spending money to get public schools new history books instead of allowing tons of public schools in under-priveledged areas to keep teaching from history textbooks from 1975. When they go after a particular school for a "religious" violation, I bet the amount of money they're spending on the legal side would be more than enough to cover the cost of new, more accurate, books for that particular school.

Clearly the creation vs. evolution topic has no impact on overall readyness for college or overall scholastics. Every stat I can find indicates that Christian school graduates (and private school students in general) on average score about the same, and in some cases higher, than public school graduates in terms of GPA & SAT/ACT scores so teaching creationism can't be that much of a show stopper.

So, why does ACLU have such a particular interest in this one instance of nonsense?