"Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view as old as human civilization itself." preface to humanist manifestos I and II 1979 prometheus books
"Everson vrs. Board of Education, 330 U.S 1, 67 S.Ct. 504. There we said: 'Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion over another. Neither can force or influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or dis-beliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion."
Supreme court justice Hugo Black
This was a secular leaning supreme court quote. The federal government can pass no laws to force belief in a religion. No person can be punished for entertaining religious beliefs or dis-beliefs. tax money can not be raised to support.
So If secular humanism is admitted by humanists (such as founding co-signer And public school innovator john Dewey) as a religious system. Then it can not be imposed or favored over or against any pther belief system. (creationism)
Definition of fact in English
fact
Translate fact | into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
noun
They say that evolution is a fact, but facts don't change while evolution does.
Darwinism taught that man descended from the orangutan. Other evolutionists said chimpanzees and yet still others say that we all came from a species that does not yet exist.
Now let's say that we had an incident on the sidewalk and you are a police officer investigating the scene. You asked the witness "what happened?"
He says "Yeah this old lady got ran over by a car!"
you ask "what color was the car?"
"The motorcycle was blue! It hit that little girl across the foot!"
What race was this woman?
"she was hawaiian! and she was mad at that van for bumping her elbow!"
"Wait are you describing the same story?"
"I don't see any other wrecks out here!"
Would you consider this witness testimony factual?
Evolution is not a fact that is a ridiculous statement. Unless you think that Darwin was not an evolutionist.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090623-humans-chimps-related.html
Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps
But looking at physical traits rather than genetic ones, orangutans are a better match, Grehan and Schwartz say.
Tell-tale features shared by both orangutans and humans include thickly
enameled molar teeth with flat surfaces, greater asymmetries between the
left and right side of the brain, an increased cartilage-to-bone ratio
in the forearm, and similarly shaped shoulder blades.
"A hole in the roof of the mouth that was supposedly unique to humans is also present in orangs," Schwartz said.
"Humans and orangs have the widest-separated mammary glands, and they grow the longest hair," he added. "Humans and orangs actually have a hairline, in contrast to virtually all primates, where the hair comes down to the top of the eyes."
The team also highlighted orangutan-type traits in the teeth and jaw remains of ancient
Based on their analysis, the authors suggest "that humans and orangutans share a common ancestor that excludes [living] African apes."
But orangutans are native to Southeast Asia, which creates a problem: How did humans evolve in Africa if we are so closely related to the geographically distant orangutan? (Explore a human migration time line.)
The mainstream view is that humans evolved from the same group as African great apes: chimps, bonobos, and gorillas.
Instead, the authors speculate that a widely distributed orangutan-like ancestor of humans lived in Africa, Europe, and Asia some 13 million years ago.
Subsequent changes in climate and environment likely caused many populations to become extinct, leaving Asian and African species to evolve in isolation.
"Wacky Idea"
"There are actually very few [physical] features linking chimps and humans," noted the Natural History Museum's Andrews. "The case for that is based almost entirely on molecular evidence."
And those molecular studies are flawed, Schwartz and Grehan say, because of the high likelihood that the data includes broadly shared DNA traits.
"When you're doing a really rigorous analysis of relationships, you don't just stop at the potential demonstration of similarity," Schwartz said. "You have to distinguish between features that are widely shared [among many species] and those that are more uniquely shared."
In addition, Schwartz notes, the most cited studies are largely based on the so-called coding region of the genome, which makes up just 2 to 3 percent of an animal's DNA.
Scientists are referring to this tiny part of the genome when they say humans and chimps are so similar, he said.
But other studies that focus on non-coding regions also consistently support a human-chimp link, counters Carel van Schaik of the Anthropological Institute and Museum at the University of Zurich, Switzerland.
"A study that reaches a very different conclusion [from the genetic evidence] must explain why these molecular studies are wrong," van Schaik, who also serves as a consultant to the conservation group Borneo Orangutan Survival UK, said in an email.
"Of course, orangutans are very human-like in many respects, but so are chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas … ."
Anthropologist Nick Newton-Fisher, of the University of Kent in the U.K., described the human evolutionary path implied by the new study as a "wacky idea."
"Given the weight of evidence from the genetics," he said, he would be reluctant to accept the new findings."
So while the evolutionist may evolve their ideas. They may not impose them on school children. At least not according to constitutional law.
1 comment:
It should be noted. That no one was allowed to speak. This was simply a meeting declaring that the plans for "the next generation science standards" would proceed. The board voted unanimously in favor of the program. After about 4,000 response very few were in favor of the measure but they simply were rejected with the same statement of rejection.
Post a Comment