Intelligent Design case decided - Dover, Pennsylvania, School Board loses [Fox News Alert]

Fox News | 12/20/05

[Jo Nuvark]

[... 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.

[Dimensio]

Then, you admit it is a theory that lacks any proofs?

All explanations in science lack "proofs". I hear some are even saying aliens brought life to planet earth - the way evolutionary

Fred Hoyle was an advocate of that. But that has nothing to do with evolution.

the way evolutionary theorists define science accomodates all their lies.

Non-sequitur (and a lie at that).

Excuse me, i'm not making up anything. My brother-inlaw graduated from Harvard with a degree in mathmatics

A degree in mathematics does not confer expertise in biology.

and received his PH.D from the U. of Stuttgart. He was ranked one of the top 1000 Scientists in the world. Perhaps you could take some time and research him - his name is Dr. Pete Patton. He used to be the Director of the Super Computer Center at the U. of Minnesota, Vice-Provost at the U. of Pennsylvania and was quite successful in the corporate world. He has also published many books. After he retired from the corporate world as a Chief Scientist, he taught some classes at the St Thomas University.

So what's his field of study. You say a PhD, but you don't say what his doctorate concerns. Is he a biologist? Phycisist? Chemist?

[jwalsh07]

The Catholic Church utterly rejects sociobiology and evolutionary psychology and that will remain so. You heard it here first...

Or maybe second.

[4woodenboats]

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.

[Dimensio]

My money says that one is overturned because even the Clinton appointee was skeptical of the ACLU and the trail judges holding. The two conservative judges ripped the ACLU a new one.

They weren't exactly kind to the pro-sticker side either. But I notice that ID advocates conveniently fail to notice that BOTH sides were grilled, not just the ACLU.

[jwalsh07]

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.

[Dimensio]

I am addressing the actions of the judge, and it's effect upon our society.

How do the actions of the judge affect religion?

I am honest and express myself clearly, while your unprovoked attack on my character reeks of fear.

Your side is the one that brought up atheism and Godlessness in a discussion about evolution.

[narby]

I never ran across one in which JP said that he was an evolutionist.

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.

[jwalsh07]

Look let's put our money and intuition where are mouths are. 100 bucks to FR from the loser?

[Dimensio]

Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact.

You have been told COUNTLESS times that "theories" are end-points in science, and that they never graduate to "fact". Why are you being so intellectually dishonest here?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

No remark about why you only posted half the Darwin quote before, making it look like Darwin had no answer to the problems of the fossil record?

"You see... I haven't figured out how a bird can fly while
waiting millions of years for it's scales to become feathers.."

Feathers are a form of insulation. They would have evolved for that reason and only later would they have been used for flight.

Scientists have also found have feathered dinosaurs, so the problem is no problem.

"I believe these transitional forms are actual species, or
adaptations. MHO."

Of course they are species; nobody is saying they aren't.

[Ichneumon]

Nonetheless, it seems that the evolutionists simply respond--

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.

[Varda]

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.

[jwalsh07]

Oh, and I'm not an ID advocate. For the umpteenth time, I'm a Catholic creationist who recognizes that evolution small e is a fact and that intelligent design, small id is a fact.

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.

[Coyoteman]

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.

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?

[jwalsh07]

You have been told COUNTLESS times that "theories" are end-points in science, and that they never graduate to "fact". Why are you being so intellectually dishonest here?

LOL, thats the disclaimer from Dover.

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Gee, are you "conflating ID with creationism?"

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!

[jwalsh07]

You have been told COUNTLESS times that "theories" are end-points in science, and that they never graduate to "fact". Why are you being so intellectually dishonest here?

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?

[whattajoke]

Except to see more law suits coming out of this.

Nah. This trial was such an embarrassment to the ID movement, they'd be hard-pressed doing it again. No way will Behe ever take the stand again - and he's the "leading proponent" of the whole charade.

See, by being called on the carpet for all the hooey and hokum inherent in the inane idea of ID, the whole thing goes up in smoke. Methinks they'll crawl back into their little holes and come up with plan... what are they up to now? V?

[lonestar67]

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"?