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.
I have heard that Darwin reimbraced Christianity before he died.....any knowledge of the veracity of that?
Another thing that some folks might find surprising is that in the Dover case, the prosecution's primary expert witness on the subject of evolution was biologist Kenneth R. Miller, who is a devout Christian. He authored the book, "Finding Darwin's God", about common ground between God and evolution. Nonetheless, he feels that "ID" doesn't belong in science class and is not itself a science. He makes a good case for that position, and I (and many other people) agree with it.
It's all been debunked, over and over. But it lives on in the creationist websites. From there, the stuff keeps finding its way into our threads. Endless nonsense.
And you'd be right. But that is not the case for evolutionary biology, which has been built upon, and validated by, an overwhelming amount of evidence, along multiple independently cross-confirming lines.
Right.
You just said thanks and all those who helped us along will see that and appreciate it...
What do you think you're doing on these threads? Tell me a story about where all the kinds of life we see on Earth now came from.
FYI. O'Reilly and Napalitano(?) just trashed the decision
Inconsistent testifying, or misspeaking or just plain lying, its all about the same thing...and your are right, there sure is a lot of it going on here...
What evidence leads you to conclude Kenneth R. Miller is "a devout Christian," and what does this observation have to do with the veracity, or lack thereof, in deducing intelligent design from the presence of organized matter the behaves according to predictable laws?
I shd prefer the Part or Volume not to be dedicated to me (though I thank you for the intended honour) as this implies to a certain extent my approval of the general publication, about which I know nothing...
Are you saying you are bucking the trend to blindly accept Darwinism?
I know its a lot of endless nonsense, and it unfortunately does keep popping up here...but, thankfully, there are more than enough folks here, who know where to guide those of us who are looking for 'facts', not made up stories...
It probably is a bit trying for the regulars to keep going over and over the same stuff, but from me, and I am sure, from many other posters, and from all the lurkers, we send our many thanks....be patient with us, we are learning, and the only way we will learn is to ask questions...
Appreciate the time you all give to us..
Just damn - good news.
This issue is still being debated. And, as was mentioned earlier, was only explored after citing the inconsistencies. Still, the fact remains: there are wide gaps in the fossil record - especially when tracing human descent
Too much stretching turns into what Mark Twain called "stretchers."
They mean Darwin was smart enough to weasel his way out of directly endorsing a controversial publication. Some might call it "testifying inconsistently."
Isn't it interesting how anytime a judge doesn't rule the way someone wants, the judge is knee-jerkedly labeled "activist" and legislating from the bench. All from people who claim to read and understand the constitution but fail to read and comprehend science.
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.