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.

[xzins]

I think he had thought to be an Anglican clergyman at one point.

I sure hope he came back to Christ. It's a shame to think of anyone spending eternity separated from God.

[Jo Nuvark]

Your response to the deviant troll, ROOTKIDSKIN said,
[... What other culture has spent it's money and the
lives of it's citizens to bring freedom to strangers?...]

YOU ROCK!!!

[PatrickHenry]

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...

It was to avoid endlessly repeating the same stuff that I started The List-O-Links. A few years ago, before it got so big, I used to post it into threads. Then it started to look like I was spamming, so I moved it to my home page, where it continues to grow. But those who could most benefit from that information never bother to look. Still, I find it a useful resource.

[Dimensio]

And, as was mentioned earlier, was only explored after citing the inconsistencies.

What inconsistencies?

[Ichneumon]

Actually, I believe it will turn to how stupid I am and how little I understand the theory of evolution.

Well, when you say things as wildly off-base as the following, you *should* indeed expect to be correctly informed that you don't understand the theory of evolution:

On the other hand, if evolution really is abandoning the notion that simple life forms can take on added complexity by themselves through only random and environmental changes, that is a huge victory for evolution's critics. It means that evolution is now becoming so glaringly stupid that even the most simple minded will be able to see it as the sham that it is. ("See, our theory is that life on this planet began very simply. For lack of a better term, as primordial soup in which lived single, one celled animals. Where they came from, don't ask us. We tried to deal with that a long time ago, but our critics were too tough, so we created another branch of science to deal with that. They're on their own. Now, this primordial soup ended up evolving and spawning, through environmental changes the rich, diverse biosphere which we have today. This includes evolution's crowning achievement, man. However, it should be noted that evolution does not require the addition of any complexity into these animals. As anyone by the most stupidest religious fanatic can tell you, human beings are on the same order of complexity as primordial soup.")

That was a classic "straw man" argument -- the kind where you tear down a distorted, cartoonish version of your target, instead of the real thing.

Nah, I think we're just dealing with people who really don't understand what they're arguing in favor of.

Oh yeah? Try me.

[VadeRetro]

(Hint: we've already looked, and we couldn't find any, flightless bird species on oceanic islands are always unique to that island, for an evolutionary reason that you'll work out if you think about it)...

No, he won't. That is the amazing thing about creationism/ID. It's the science of not thinking, not seeing, "I'll never get this and you can't make me."

[unlearner]

I like your analogy.

[Dimensio]

"She claimed that Charles personally told her of his rejection of Christianity"

Should be "rejection of evolution". Oops.

(unlike many antievolutionists around here, I admit my mistakes).

[narby]

You've gotta show some changed DNA & you've got to measure the amount of time it took to accomplish that change.

If it were that simple, don't you think Behe or one of the paid minions at the Discovery Institute would have published it?

Actually, the ERV DNA sequences in the human genome are a good measure of how fast DNA mutates, when not "repaired" by evolution (since these strings don't participate in the genome, random changes accumulate).

For an anecdotal demonstration of genome change, consider the fact that there is a bacteria out there in nature that digests nylon. This is only possible because it contains an enzyme that specifically allows the digestion of the nylon. The significance of that is that nylon didn't exist until a few decades ago, and the enzyme did not exist until after then. Enzymes are very complex, yet this one evolved in only those few years.

Multiply that ability to evolve complex genes by billions of times, and evolution becomes very easy (for most people) to grasp.

[Ceewrighter]

My main point is the wide gap in the fossil record respecting human descent. Is that not a deviation from the theory? Anyhow, after all is said and done, the scientific method is faith in action. Never more, often less.

[xzins]

Hey, to paraphrase some yardbird around here: "It's not ID's job to do EVO's research."

:>)

[Ichneumon]

Still, the fact remains: there are wide gaps in the fossil record -

...but there are also enough "filled gaps" to give overwhelming evidence of evolutionary change and common ancestry. Why fixate on the gaps? Why not look at the vast amounts of evidence we *have* found?

especially when tracing human descent

Actually, the fossil record of human descent is far less "gappy" today than it was just twenty years ago. There's a pretty good stepwise fossil sequence from apes to modern humans. And if that's not enough for you, there's *overwhelming* DNA and biochemical evidence of common ancestry between apes and man.

[Antonello]

Good to see you here; I figured there had to be something occupying you to keep you away. For all our disagreements, I'd never peg you for one to lay low.

Your assessment on the likelihood of appeal and the result respecting the case not being binding on a larger scale are pretty much what I figure too.

As for perjury charges, that's always a possibility, but I wouldn't count on it too much unless the judge wants to make a point of discouraging it in his courtroom. Not any real judicial gains to be had otherwise. It would just be salt in wounds and I've never seen much point in that.

From the brief scans I've done over the decision, I get the impression that the judge ruled fairly broadly. He didn't seem to want to leave any doubt as to his legal opinion on all aspects of the matter. While that makes the case fertile ground as a source for precedent, it does give more opportunity for the defense to mount an appeal in the unlikely event that they should decide to. The judge also obviously expects some political fallout to come his way and I think his comments show that he's bracing for it in advance.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to you sharing your thoughts on it after you've had a chance to absorb it. Talk to you later!

[andysandmikesmom]

Thanks for the reminder about 'The List-o-Links'..I must admit, I have been lazy about investigating this list, and now I should reprimand myself for that...I am sure that this list has lots of answers to my questions, so I should investigate this list much more fully...

And I would recommend this to all other posters and lurkers who have questions...we do have an obligation to inform ourselves and this list, I am sure, will help us...

Thanks for the reminder...

[js1138]

Thank you. I don't reject ID because I am sure it is wrong. I simply don't see any science being done.

I also have a naturalistic view of intelligence, both human and biological. I think natural selection is equivalent to animal (and human) learning.

[Ceewrighter]

Separation of church and state does not mean separating church from public life. In no founding document will you find that.

[narby]

Oh, yeah, "Creationism is a real cancer on Conservatism"...yeah, uh sure.

Creationism destroys the credibility of conservatism. We have gotten where we are because conservatism was supported by the evidence, even when the leftists argued against it.

But evolution is fact, deal with it.

[Recovering_Democrat]

I wholeheartedly agree in principle. However, there can be disagreements on what is and is not a local decision.

This case was about Dover and nowhere else. So it was a local decision. School boards decide only for their locality, and not anywhere else. This is bad law, no matter what you think of the Dover SB ruling.

[VadeRetro]

We neither share nor have anything in common with them. [Monkeys]

I'll start with the most basic thing, DNA.

We have most of the same globins including myoglobin and hemoglobin.

Then there is the spinal chord. In fact, humans and monkeys are both not only chordates but vertebrates.

But we both have mammary glands, mammalian jaw and ear bones, and placental reproduction.

And we're both smarter than those dumb old lemurs.

[js1138]

I'm curious about a point of law. If an appeals court in another district makes a ruling opposite to or incompatible with the Dover ruling, what happens to the Dover ruling?

Can the Dover ruling be overturned by another court, and if so, can this then be appealed?