Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Including the concepts of Creationism and ID which are, indeed religion based . The only thing that messes with the 1st Amenment is when a teacher starts teaching it as FACTUL EVIDENCE BASED SCIENCE. If the teacher wishes to do that, he or she should seek a job in an ID /Creation SCience Fundamentalist parochia

That makes little sense but if you are saying that the Supreme Court decisions follow the parochial school "Science program", you would be wrong. If the schools are all self supporting with no tax dollars, then you are free to say that the earth was raised up on the back of a huge turtle. I dont think parents would want to close off any career options for their kids so early in the kids life

What you call "Open to all points of view" , Ive actually seen as indoctrination with fact-free inculcation.'

The "Open Mindedness" has resulted in creeping incorrect use of semi facts like "evolution is just a theory" without explaining what "theory" even meqns in science,

or evolution without a"creator"can only be seen to a micro level, or the ever popular "lifes to complex to have arisen by evolution'

Of course they did. After all, they agreed to the judicial review process. Were IT NOT for judicial review, your "open minded" IDers would probably be stifling genetic research and the teaching of biology would be based on Biblical interpretation alone.

You dont think a huge committee of brilliant scientific minds came up with modern INTELLIGENT DESIGN did you??
It was one guy who was a lawyer , a big time supporter of "Scientific Creationism" and a hell of a salesman and fund raiser.
This guy, Phil Johnon, pretty much , changed the title "Scientific Cretionism"to Intelligent Design" with a single book "Darwin on Trial

Bigoted? really? should the schools have just bent over and left the church of ID take over and lead education down the road back to Reconstruction where they taught that only white people were fully human??

Youre balmy, this issue doesnt only infect kids minds with superstition driven worldviews about how life came about. It also , in elements of "civic Biology" preached about deeply racist "facts "

ID ers and Creation "Science" folks have dropped the racist views but only after several other de jure outcomes. And here we are still . I imagine that youd be working hard to impose a religious based biological science program , if you wouldnt be fined.

Am I living in America or Stalin's Russia. Instead fining me maybe they should send me to a desolate place in North Dakota.

I don't think they should exclusively follow either. We already settled that in 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, and
In 1981, in Segraves v. State of California, the courts ruled teaching only one view is wrong. Then Lemon came up with his biased secular only philosophical view (relativistic philosophy over common sense realism philosophy) and some how that was labeled as guaranteeing freedom of discussion in academia.

Inteligent Design attempts to explain how matter and life came into existence along with suggesting that the embedded levels of complexity are to much to overcome by random introduction of new information.

Darwinism does not provide an explanation for the origin of matter or life like ID does. The Darwinian process starts after abiogenisis.

Inteligent Design attempts to explain how matter and life came into existence along with suggesting that the embedded levels of complexity are to much to overcome by random introduction of new information.

I have only provided historical and scientific evidence with a logical interpretation of that evidence to support my conclusions.

One judge judge that had a bias towards a "relativistic" philosophical point of view outlawed the discussion of the "common sense realism" philosophical point of view.

(July 14, 1933) a sterilization law was passed in Nazi Germany, known as Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses (Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring). Any German was a target if they were found to be suffering from a range of perceived hereditary ailments, such as congenital mental deficiency, schizophrenia, manic-depressive insanity, epilepsy, Huntington’s chorea, blindness, deafness, any severe hereditary deformity or even severe alcoholism. Official pronouncements insisted that these individuals were a drain on the German people, both biologically and financially (see right). The law passed on this day ultimately led to an estimated 400,000 people being involuntarily sterilized in pursuit of this national goal of “racial hygiene,” to eliminate handicapped descendants.

Creationists are fond of laying the blame for Nazi eugenics on Charles Darwin. They insist that his materialist argument that humans evolved from animals and his conception of natural selection inspired the Nazis to implement a widespread policy of artificial selection within the Fatherland. However, these claims are as baseless as was the so-called “science” that the Nazis employed.

For example, William Dembski, intelligent design creationist and co-author of Moral Darwinism, claims:

Darwin is the founder of the modern eugenics movement in all its later myriad forms, whether it is expressed through a call to weed out the unfit, breed more of the fit, abort the undesirable and deformed or manipulate our nature genetically through technology.

In nearly identical form Jonathan Wells, devotee of Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon, writes:

Darwinism’s connection with eugenics, abortion and racism is a matter of historical record. And the record is not pretty.

Islamic creationist Harun Yahya (whom I recently interviewed from his home in Istanbul) similarly insists:

The eugenics, euthanasia, forced sterilization, concentration camps, racial purity and gas chambers of the mid-20th century emerged as a result of the Darwin-Haeckel-Hitler coalition, representing the worst and most ruthless cruelty in the history of humanity.

Taken together this would be a damning indictment, if there were actually any truth to their claims. The main connections that all three authors make between Darwinism and eugenics is that Francis Galton, an early proponent of eugenics, was Darwin’s cousin and that Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist who championed evolution and maintained a long correspondence with the English naturalist, was a primary source for Nazi eugenic policies.

The strength of their arguments quickly fall apart, however, once they are given a few moments thought. The Galton connection is quite obviously baseless, for surely no one can be held responsible for something their cousin promotes (especially since Galton didn’t even invent the term eugenics until a year after Darwin’s death).

With the inexorable march of science, the predictions of evolution, which evolutionists were certain of, keep turning out false. This week’s failure is the much celebrated notion that the eukaryote’s power plant — the mitochondria — shares a common ancestor with the alphaproteobacteria. A long time ago, as the story goes, that bacterial common ancestor merged with an early eukaryote cell.

And these two entities, as luck would have it, just happened to need each other. Evolution had just happened to create that early bacterium, and that early eukaryote, in such a way that they needed, and greatly benefited from, each other. And, as luck would have it again, these two entities worked together. The bacterium would just happen to produce the chemical energy needed by the eukaryote, and the eukaryote would just happen to provide needed supplies. It paved the way for multicellular life with all of its fantastic designs.

There was only one problem: the story turned out to be false.

The paper (from Nature) does, however, make a rather startling claim. The authors in Nature write:

[O]ur analyses indicate that mitochondria evolved from a proteobacterial lineage that branched off before the divergence of all sampled alphaproteobacteria.

Mitochondria evolved from a proteobacterial lineage, predating the alphaproteobacteria?

That is a startling claim because, well, simply put there is no evidence for it. The lack of evidence is exceeded only by the evolutionist’s confidence. Note the wording: “indicate.”

The evolutionist’s analyses indicate this new truth. How can the evolutionists be so sure of themselves in the absence of literally any evidence?

The answer is, because they are evolutionists. They are completely certain that evolution is true. And since evolution must be true, the mitochondria had to have evolved from somewhere. And the same is true for the alphaproteobacteria. They must have evolved from somewhere.