Intelligent Design case decided - Dover, Pennsylvania, School Board loses [Fox News Alert]

Fox News | 12/20/05

[snarks_when_bored]

Fox News alert a few minutes ago says the Dover School Board lost their bid to have Intelligent Design introduced into high school biology classes. The federal judge ruled that their case was based on the premise that Darwin's Theory of Evolution was incompatible with religion, and that this premise is false.

[MindBender26]

>Stalin loved it and implemented Darwin's ideology into his plans... so did hitler. Marx thought the world of Darwin. And your standard atheist secularists here thinks he is God.

Stalin, Hitler and Marx also loved mashed potatos. Does that make mashed potatos Communists?

You have failed logic 101. All cats are 4 legged animals, but not all 4 legged animals are cats.

[MindBender26]

>Humans are not monkeys.
>We neither share nor have anything in common with them.

The man obviously never met my ex-wife.... or any 16 year old boy.

[Dimensio]

The judge is a total idiot.

I take it that you evaluated all of the arguments presented by the plaintiff and the defense's response (including a little bit of dishonesty from two of the board members) and have made this statement based upon such an evaluation?

[Antonello]

DNA actually proofreads itself in some cases. So this would prevent change.

Can you tell me why the banana industry is currently in a panic? (Hint: it has to do with imperfect genetic replication, or the lack thereof.)

[Thatcherite]

So how does one go about testing evolution?. The test of a scientific theory is the extent to which it makes successful predictions, and the potential observations that might falsify it, but which don't occur.

[snarks_when_bored]

The decision doesn't allow ID to be taught at all, so I'm afraid your suggested compromise won't work.

[OKIEDOC]

So now the courts are determining religion and telling us what is and isn't possible.

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Just now able to get to a puter. I have but one question concerning the ruling. That is: Why is the teaching of one THEORY, more important than the teaching of a different THEORY!

[Dimensio]

That is: Why is the teaching of one THEORY, more important than the teaching of a different THEORY!

Um, what "different THEORY" is there?

[jbloedow]

...but I've never seen the cowardly cop-out of "It'd take way too long for me to support my claim with evidence!"

You're joking right? I don't think I've seen one of these threads where "your side" didn't tell someone on "our side" to go away and do the research yourself, it would take too long to bring you up to speed, or words to that effect.

Suppose for the sake of argument that you're having a dispute in English and someone comes along who doesn't speak English. He tells you your argument doesn't make sense. You tell him that's because you don't speak the language. Then he tells you, well until you teach me English I'm going to maintain that what you've claimed is nonsense. You'd laugh this guy off as a complete idiot.

Well that's what I'm doing with you. To engage in a conversation there is always some assumption of some minimum level of common knowledge in order to participate. If you have to have everyone "prove" every little claim just because you're the only one in the room who slept through class, as it were, then conversation breaks down.

Anyway, I -- and now others -- have completely repudiated this adolescent line of attack. Everyone here who knows anything about the history of Marxism and Freudianism in the West is just laughing at you. The evidence is in books and books, volumes of journals, articles, writings.

Why don't I ask you to provide evidence that you're not a mentally retarded fool?

If you simple are not up to speed on the topics being brought up, either take the word of experts or fermez votre bouche.

[Hacksaw]

Actually, this is a myth; Darwin never wrote Marx any letters at all. eleni121 is repeating another creationist lie. Don't expect any apologies for it; creationists are loath to admit mistakes.

Your website quoted is a cut-and-past series of talking points used to rebut anti darwinists - not the best source to quote when you accuse others of repeating lies (an accusation I see you frequently make). I searched for more and found an anti Darwinist website that said quite the opposite. So it seems I will have to decide for myself what is true after more reasearch on my own, as you (and most on here) appear just as biased as those you attack.

[X-Ecutioner]

I am a libertarian yet I find NOTHING wrong ID being taught in class along with evolution. ID is not pushing religion into science. Science historically somes out of a pagan system anyway.....

There are scientists who believe in ID. So what's the problem?

[jennyp]

There is no scientific experiment that can be carried out, suggested, or provided, without employing intelligent design.

Irrelevant, or else all of science would become invalid.

If you really want to base your worldview on the destruction of all science, well...

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

I believe all that Dover wanted to do was simply point out there are various views and refer the kids to some books on intelligent design in the library. But this idiot judge and all evolutionists are too scared to even have that tiny amount of competition. It doesn't matter as most Americans, even having been fully indoctrinated into evolutionary garbage, still don't believe it.

What a bunch of DODO's (DARWIN ONLY! DARWIN ONLY!).

(I must admit I took that acronym from CreationSafaris) Type "CREV.INFO" in your browser.

[Baraonda]

>>Me: Humans are not monkeys.

>You: I'll assume (for your sake) that you're joking.

No, I'm not. We are not monkeys.

[Dimensio]

There are scientists who believe in ID. So what's the problem?

There are scientists who believe in astrology. That doesn't make astrology science.

[Thatcherite]

Just now able to get to a puter. I have but one question concerning the ruling. That is: Why is the teaching of one THEORY, more important than the teaching of a different THEORY!

Because one of the theories (evolution) is a scientific theory, and is therefore appropriate for science class, like atomic theory, germ theory, and the theory of gravity for example. The other theory (ID) was admitted to be unscientific on the stand by ID's leading scientific proponent, Dr Behe (who also agreed under oath that evolution *is* a scientific theory). Dr behe admitted under oath that if the standards of scientific theories were lowered to admit ID then astrology would have to be considered a scientific theory also.

Teach ID in church, and evolution in science class.

[Coyoteman]

So how does one go about testing evolution?

Without valid testing it remains a theory and all theories require some element of belief. I fully admit that I.D. is a theory, no more testable than evolution.

And as I've said I'm not really defending I.D. I'm asking by what right does a federal court require the teaching of one theory over another?

Evolution remains a theory with or without belief. I think the development of genetic sciences provided a very good test of the theory of evolution, as it has permitted a level of quantification not easily obtained from fossils. Evolution passed that test.

ID, on the other hand, does not rise to the level of a theory:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Um, what "different THEORY" is there?

The Darwin THEORY and the Intelligent Design THEORY!