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.
Unhinged Monkeyman Placemarker
Actually the court did not mandate evolution. It merely said that ID was religion and could not be taught.
If socialism and communism were declared religious (and that is a good argument against them), then I'd expect they could not be taught either.
I don't know what the argument would be to force the teaching of a particular thing by the court.
false religion of evolution triumphs
Huh? Voters are that dumb? They needed a TRIAL that threatens to usurp the local decision makers in order to vote the right way?? The people who believe in evolution aren't able to educate the voters about how wrong and evil ID is in the classroom?? Believers in evolution have to resort to federal judges to get their ideas across??
I think the supporters of evolution are smart enough to get their point without a lawsuit. I think they ought to be able to make a case to the voters without asking a federal judge to intervene.
God is who created us. Evolution is how he did it.
Sorry yes.
Given a set of assumptions that rules out intelligent design, yes. An as-yet-undetermined amount of as-yet-undetermined substance can, with as-yet-undetermined amount of time produce anything and everything we know, and do so completely apart from any intelligence or design. Believe me! In fact, that is the only truly scientific way of looking at it, if you'd only have the sense to consult Judge Jones.
Also, and not to get into the theology of it, but that which survives and that which dies sometimes has nothing to do with anything other than pure chance.
Living in New Orleans this past year was counter-productive, for example. Being in Sumatra during a tsunami had nothing to do with height or left-handedness, either.
If you had a machine that spit out spit out blocks of randomly varied shapes, and they fell into a sorter that only let square shapes through, would you really believe that the exclusive collection of squares that emerged happened randomly?
And you might be interested to learn that natural selection works on populations, not individuals. That isn't to say that a newly emerging beneficial mutation couldn't be wiped out by chance before it was able to propagate, but in the long run that won't always be the case. Also, the larger the population that shares the mutation, the less likely it is that an outside chance event will skew the selection and that simply further supports the idea that a mutation that encourages its successful spread through the population is favored. Of course, if the event is one that profoundly affects a major part of that population over time, then it may actually become the filter of natural selection itself.
Science does not depend on who believes what. Your whole argument is silly 'reasoning'. It does not matter whether Marx believed in evolution or creationism, in an OT god or a NT god, or a Hindu god, or no god. The business of science is sorting out what are valid explanations of natural phenomena, and this is independent of specific individuals. If Darwin had not developed the idea of evolution, someone else surely would have, since the observable world points to it.
As far as what Hitler, Marx or Stalin may have thought--if they thought--it makes no iota of difference. This is a kind of argument from authority in reverse. Science does not depend on authority figures to be valid. Nor is it smeared by bad people who accept it.
For example, it is likely that Hitler and Stalin believed in motherhood and gravity, too--would you then say that motherhood and gravity are, therefore, suspect and invalid?
What ID math?
You're the one who can't provide a link to this supposed "not enough time for evolution" argument.
The main problem with mathematical arguments against abiogenesis (there are none against evolution) is that we don't know how abiogenesis might have worked. So the math can't be done at all.
Garbage in, garbage out.
And I thought it was the strong nuclear force holding nuclie together and the electromagnetism holding atoms together via quantum mechanical probability functions (i.e. the very nature of matter is uncertain, it is described as a probability [N.B. very abridged explanation for those quantum saavy FR posters ]).
I pretty much agree with that but what does it have to do with a federal judge sticking his nose into the local affairs of the citizens of Dover?
Let me get this straight. Which side of the debate took this to a federal court?
[...Judge never said (nor implied) God doesn't exist.
Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution
when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include
the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidenti-
fied intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones
III said.
Sorry... this statement made me angry. Perhaps I made
the inference that the Judge does not believe God exists.
Happily, this is between God and the good Judge.
Merry Christmas.
What the name of your god?
Evolution says no such thing.
It is reasonable to believe that the complexity of the human eye, the human brain, everything we see was the result of random chance
Evolution says no such thing.
It is reasonable to believe all the variables required for life on earth just happened.
Erm, it's pretty clear that they *happened*, seeing as how we're here and everything. The dispute would be whether they happened according to natural laws or required the intervention of a supernatural entity. And guess what, evolution says nothing about that.
It is reasonable to believe in evolotion (macro) without any evidence to support that theory.
Of course not, although since there is in fact boatloads of evidence for evolution (yes, "macro" if you like, not that that's a relevant distinction) the question is irrelevant. But I'm glad to see you agree that beliving in a theory which has no evidence to support it is unreasonable.
If the Judge actually said that, he'll be overturned just as fast as the guy who decided the Gerogia case is going to be overturned.
"Sorry... this statement made me angry. Perhaps I made
the inference that the Judge does not believe God exists.
Happily, this is between God and the good Judge."
Agreed. :)
Merry Christmas!
Oh, no. RB is here.
Now we're gonna have to start all over at the "it's only a theory" part.
Because its what liberal college professors do. By not even mentioning ALL various forms of the origin of man, we are doing exactly what the liberals do, brainwashing.
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.