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.
[... Lack of transitional forms...]
You see... I haven't figured out how a bird can fly while
waiting millions of years for it's scales to become feathers...
The animal would be extremely vulnerable while waiting to
either slither or fly.
I believe these transitional forms are actual species, or
adaptations. MHO.
Or maybe second.
I am addressing the actions of the judge, and it's effect upon our society. I am honest and express myself clearly, while your unprovoked attack on my character reeks of fear.
Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence ... Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view ... As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.
There were statements released by the Vatican during JPII's time that basically said the Catholic church has no problem with science, and does not believe that evolution contradicts their understanding of the Bible.
There is no Catholic theology that rescinds the idea of God.
No. They just don't think that evolution rescinds the idea of God. They disagree with you. Surprise.
Evolution is neutral regarding the supernatural. But some number of Christian factions (not the Catholics) do believe the Bible contradicts evolution. That's their loss, because some educated people can't rationalize the physical evidence they know to exist on evolution, and that kind of rigid view of Genesis.
I couldn't rationalize the contradiction, and rather than reject reality, I rejected the Bible.
Look let's put our money and intuition where are mouths are. 100 bucks to FR from the loser?
its more complicated than that and dismiss questions as assertions from unreasonable fundamentalists.
This seems an *extremely* unfair characterization from you, given that you just asked a question and got a perfectly valid and informative response, without any hint of "it's more complicated than that" or dismissal of your question.
Perhaps you owe someone an apology.
I have to say my faith in evolution is declining with the noxious treatment of ID proponents.
Oh, stop the drama-queening. Anyone who has watched this debate for any length of time knows that the "ID proponents" are far more obnoxious in their attempts at "discussion" than the evolution proponents, and are more apt to be the first ones to throw mud. And if you had been involved in this for decades, as many of us have, you'd understand why the evolution proponents might be a bit testy -- it has to do with the failure of the creationists to discuss things in good faith. They rely on dishonest tactics and refusal to admit error, and keep coming back with the same debunked arguments year after year.
If the "ID proponents" had been dismissed and ridiculed right off the bat, that would be one thing, but what you're overlooking is that there's a long history involved here, and the "ID proponents" are now being treated the way they are due to what they've earned.
No sorry, what I posted wasn't clear at all. I just meant to say the Lady Hope story was a myth. Not that what you posted was wrong. Darwin was fundamentalist Christian early in life who lost his faith because he couldn't reconcile science with his private interpretations. He seemed to think about the question of God at various times in his life. I find that aspect of his life interesting.
But I worship neither. And neither means much to my worldview one way or the other.
Now statism and activist judges are another matter altogether.
And flying squirrels have no feathers, nor do flying fish. But both seem to have figured out a "niche" which helps them survive just a little better than what came before. And they call that...evolution.
Not full flying, but maybe a...transition?
LOL, thats the disclaimer from Dover.
No I'm not. But, one can believe in both. My only objection to the whole court ruling, is that no deity can be mentioned in public schools. That, in my opinion, is the rejection of all religion by the government. Don't get me wrong, I am the furthest thing from any religious zealot. I attend church about three times a year and that's only kicking and screaming. But, that's my choice.
I choose to worship at the Church of the Eighteen Holy's!
Lets do a test of who is and who is not intellectually honest while we are here. Why don't you find one post to me out of the "COUNTLESS" lecturing me on "theories" being end points of science never graduating to facts.
If you can't and I was you I would call you a liar. You like to call people liars. But being a good Christian I won't do that, I'll just point out that your stupid assertion is not supported by any fact. You know what facts are, right?
The idea of "no science" behind it is the kind of hyperbole that makes me think evolution is about to collapse. That is such a ridiculous characterization of the work taken by scienties who support ID. To me, the important question is why are evolution proponents resorting to these hyperboles?
I think they too must be getting exasperated with the inadequacy of evolution as a theory. The consensus basis of science must be failing and they sense the power that could be lost in the break up of this consensus.
I have presented a clear piece of scientific study differentiating primates and humans but we have quickly returned to the claim that "this is not science."
When contrary evidence is offered, tautological denunciations seem inevitable in these threads.
Kuhn offers the interesting example of alchemy. Here we have a scientific community predicated on the expectation that lead can be converted into gold. They were just wrong! However, their community did produce important achievements in larger fields of chemistry. Why do ID scientists have to be treated like such dunces? Is that really part of the "scientific method"?
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.