Posted on 09/26/2005 1:53:21 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
A Pennsylvania school district's use of "intelligent design" in its high school biology curriculum goes on trial in federal court today in the nation's first legal challenge to the idea, which contends that evolutionary theory alone does not explain how life on Earth took shape.
The lawsuit, brought by 11 parents in the Dover Area School District, attacks as unconstitutional the year-old policy of telling ninth-grade biology students that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution "is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence." School officials also recommend a book on intelligent design, or ID.
The plaintiffs, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, argue that the policy -- which does not require students to study intelligent design -- serves religious, not secular ends, violating the First Amendment.
ID proponents say scientists can look at life forms and identify the work of a controlling "intelligence," although ID advocates are not specific about the nature of that force. While they do not reject all evolutionary theory, ID proponents argue that it incorrectly insists life took shape purely through a mindless process.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
My, your memory is bad today isn't it. Just like always.
Otherwise known as the "Fallacy of Equivocation".....
Don't worry - the truth shall set you free.
Yeah, they think they have a corner on the intellectual market.
OK, what is one prediction concerning the future evolution of any existing species? Note: I won't be particularly impressed if the "prediction" has something to do with a virus "evolving" to another strain - after all, it would still be a virus, yes?
Good enough for the drivel I was answering. :-)
"The key thing about scientific theories is that they should make successful predictions about as-yet unobserved data-points."
OK, so what is the scientific community's prediction about the next step in the evolutionary process?
Doesn't that just sum it all up!
It was a lot more polite than just saying "Bullsh!t!" too.
OK, what is one prediction concerning the future evolution of any existing species? Note: I won't be particularly impressed if the "prediction" has something to do with a virus "evolving" to another strain - after all, it would still be a virus, yes?
The ToE predicted that a certain percentage of genetic flaws and harmful mutations in one species would be found in another that descended from a common ancestor. The recently completed mapping of the chimpanzee genome put that prediction to the test. And it passed.
When did I mention a prediction like that? Many other types of prediction are possible.
Evolutionary biologists cannot predict the course of evolution in the distant future any better than a meteorologist can predict the weather in the distant future. That's not the sort of "prediction" being discussed here.
Some examples of successful predictions made by evolutionary theory
That it will occur.
I'm not worried. I'm already free from ignorance.
Don't get too over-confident - there is always someone out there smarter than you (though you may find that hard to believe).
Loads of people out there are smarter than me, including lots of people in these FR debates, and I've told you that before, so I don't know why you repeat that particular ad-hominem.
Did you take some time to look at the links I provided yet?
OK, so what is the scientific community's prediction about the next step in the evolutionary process?
That it will occur.
Brillant...
Eight Significant Court Decisions.
The Evolution Controversy. Scopes trial and some Supreme Court cases.
Clarence Darrow’s Examination of William Jennings Bryan. From the Scopes trial transcript.
Freiler v Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education. Louisiana school's evolution disclaimer decision.
Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education v. Freiler. US Sup Ct denied certiorari, Scalia & Thomas dissenting.
Selman v. Cobb County School District. The Georgia textbook sticker case.
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982). Arkansas statute for "balanced treatment" of "creation-science" & "evolution-science" is unConstitutional.
That would be "smarter than I".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.