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.
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.
If natural selection was random, then it wouldn't be "selection".
You have a link?
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.
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.
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.
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
I know, I know. I'm just going too fast for the internal proofreader to keep up. Sorry.
The Iliad.
Well we've found the core of your misunderstanding. Perhaps if you knew what science was you could make better arguements. Just a thought.
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.
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...
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.
Now, that is a good one.
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.
You really should check the meaning of "intelligent" and "sentient"
"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.
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.