Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design case decided - Dover, Pennsylvania, School Board loses [Fox News Alert]
Fox News | 12/20/05

Posted on 12/20/2005 7:54:38 AM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: biology; creation; crevolist; dover; education; evolution; intelligentdesign; keywordpolice; ruling; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,161-1,1801,181-1,2001,201-1,220 ... 3,381-3,391 next last
To: MineralMan

Yeah. Kind of funny how the same thing happens every time. You'd almost think it was by design. But, nah, it's got to be something else. "Science" says so.


1,181 posted on 12/20/2005 3:09:22 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 885 | View Replies]

To: xzins
It simply isn't fast enough for the available time due to its randomness.

If natural selection was random, then it wouldn't be "selection".

You have a link?

1,182 posted on 12/20/2005 3:10:49 PM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1165 | View Replies]

To: narby

You want a link to prove that ID's criticism is that there isn't enough time? That's the whole point of Behe's math.

Get his book...it's the link.


1,183 posted on 12/20/2005 3:11:13 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1177 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
"His letters/life/ideology prove it."

No, they don't. Provide EVIDENCE he was a misanthrope and a liar. Or admit you made it up.

"And his supporters - Stalin, Hitler, Marx plus EVOS here - too."

Stalin had Darwinists killed. Marx formulated his theories long before he read any Darwin, and he never mentioned him in his works. Hitler was a creationist who never read Darwin.

Why must you lie so?
1,184 posted on 12/20/2005 3:11:36 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1178 | View Replies]

To: xzins
It does have a problem with natural selection in that it isn't fast enough for the available time

This has been addressed continuously since Darwin, and your opinion is simply your opinion against all the rest of biology.

Most of Darwin's data on natural variation was derived from interviewing animal breeders about "sports" or mutations (yes, breeders know the difference between a new allele and a recessive trait).

Darwin used this data to calculate the natural rate of variation. He then used this rate to calculate the time necessary to evolve from a single cell to the multi-celled creatures we see today.

He arrived at a minimum age of the earth of several hundred million years -- about thirty times the maximum age calculated by physicists of the time. One could say that Biology produced a better estimate of the age of the earth than physics, at least until the discovery of radioactivity.

1,185 posted on 12/20/2005 3:11:37 PM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1164 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
His letters/life/ideology prove it.

Quote from one of his letters to support your claim. And reference one of those "500 theses" on Piltdown Man, while you're at it. I suspect that you'll do neither, because you, eleni121, are more dishonest than Michael Moore.
1,186 posted on 12/20/2005 3:12:02 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1178 | View Replies]

To: laxin4him

Oh, no, they're so sure that they're right, they become incredibly and comically arrogant and serpent-tongued,spiteful and rude towards anyone who disagrees with them.


1,187 posted on 12/20/2005 3:12:23 PM PST by benjibrowder (The government (at all levels) should not be involved in the education business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1180 | View Replies]

To: aNYCguy

Could you give me some examples of mythology containing elements of hisorical truth? When I think of mythology I think of Zeus, Pegasus, and those types but I am not that familiar with the elements of truth in those stories so hopefully you can help me out. Thanks


1,188 posted on 12/20/2005 3:12:23 PM PST by laxin4him (They will know by our love not our picket lines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1103 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Ghrrk...mmnngh....nnnnnnnggh!

I know, I know. I'm just going too fast for the internal proofreader to keep up. Sorry.

1,189 posted on 12/20/2005 3:12:37 PM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1168 | View Replies]

To: laxin4him

The Iliad.


1,190 posted on 12/20/2005 3:13:32 PM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1188 | View Replies]

To: laxin4him
I thought science dealt with proof and the reason for experiements are to prove a theory

Well we've found the core of your misunderstanding. Perhaps if you knew what science was you could make better arguements. Just a thought.

1,191 posted on 12/20/2005 3:14:53 PM PST by Dinsdale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1180 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Should it be my problem when it is you who are contradicting yourself?

One is present tense. One is potential future tense.

Although I'm sure purists will claim that science will be called something else if someone was able to detect the supernatural.

Whatever.

I'm not going to get into a semantic argument over this. You know what I mean.

In my opinion, it won't ever happen in any event.

1,192 posted on 12/20/2005 3:15:27 PM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1172 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

I think you are wrong...Darwin probably would be a theistic evolutionist, but if he were a teacher today, would he bring up his religious beliefs within the context of teaching his students science...if he did, he would probably be chastized...

Many teachers and professors who teach science are also theists and also believe in evolution...but I dont think that they bring the 'religious' views into the classroom...

And isnt what this case was about?...was ID just a slick way of trying to slip creationism, hence religion, back into the classroom?...the judge seemed to believe that it was, and also found no grounds for the IDers claims, that ID is actually a science...

People can believe whatever they want, in matters or religion...but bringing those religious beliefs into the classroom is a different matter...

And whether or not Darwin would have brought his own personal religious beliefs into the classroom of today, is something we will never know...

By the way, love your last name...


1,193 posted on 12/20/2005 3:15:52 PM PST by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1161 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse
So, the burden of proof is on you. Please provide your falsifiable test.

The test of science is not how provable a theory is, but how reasonable it is. Provability and falsifiability are valuable tools, but they do not have a part in establishing the point of view from which the observer undertakes science. I don't see either side of the debate providing absolutely conclusive evidence for its assumptions, at least not in this life. What I hope to see is consideration for both points of view, both of which are reasonable.

1,194 posted on 12/20/2005 3:16:00 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 774 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

Now, that is a good one.


1,195 posted on 12/20/2005 3:16:09 PM PST by furball4paws (The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 961 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Precisely. The ToE can qualify as an intelligence....any organizing principle that enables the awesome complexity all around us.

What ID has done is demonstrated that the ToE has significant problems...it was a criticism of weaknesses in ToE.

The major criticism is that there is not enough time to accomodate the vast complexity evident in the lifeforms all around us.

If your interpretation is true then ID is merely a subset of falsification hypotheses for the ToE, just like any other such subset that evolutionists routinely develop and test. As such, once an ID proponent devises an observable, reproducible test that falsifies a part of the ToE it will be accepted, and either incorporated into a revision of the ToE or force a revolutionary paradigm shift in interpreting all the evidence as a whole. Until that time, however, it has nothing to offer that the ToE doesn't already provide.

In other words, ID will be accepted as soon as it does its own scientific footwork, and stops trying to get over by demanding that it wins by default until the ToE proponents do the job for them.

1,196 posted on 12/20/2005 3:16:38 PM PST by Antonello (Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1158 | View Replies]

To: xzins
ID does not require the designer to be a sentient being.

You really should check the meaning of "intelligent" and "sentient"

1,197 posted on 12/20/2005 3:16:45 PM PST by Oztrich Boy (so natural to mankind is intolerance in whatever they really care about - J S Mill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 933 | View Replies]

Comment #1,198 Removed by Moderator

To: eleni121
Your absolute refusal to support any of your totally unsubstantiated assertions is noted, liar.

Are you trying to make creationists look like frauds? If so, you're doing a good job.
1,199 posted on 12/20/2005 3:19:39 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1198 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

"So, an increase in fitness is not necessarily an increase in complexity. Is that what you are saying?"

The "complexity" bothers me, but in general, yes. Each thing is tested for fitness. If it fails, it dies. If it passes, that's good. There are a lot of very fit, much less "complex" things out there that are doing quite well.


1,200 posted on 12/20/2005 3:19:45 PM PST by furball4paws (The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 998 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,161-1,1801,181-1,2001,201-1,220 ... 3,381-3,391 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson