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.

[narby]

LOL, it is better to be thought a fool than to confirm it. Congrats on your confirmation.

You get that out of a Book of Insults?

Call me a fool if you want, but it looks to me like a completely irrelevant thought.

[jwalsh07]

Well, you're sharp enough to identify the differences between this case and Cobb County and make an argument to that end. Sadly, you don't have much company here. Or maybe not so sadly.

[jbloedow]

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.

Finally, a non-infantile response. I tempted to grant you your claim just in gratitude for an evolutionist willing to engage in the conversation at a post-pubescent level.

But I would be remiss if I didn't point out that Marxists and Freudians would have made exactly the same claim as you are making here.

As I explained in a previous thread, no-one is in a position to speak authoritatively to the extent of the alleged evidence for evolution, because it exists in a host of very specialized fields which require very parochial knowledge in order for one truly to decide for oneself about the state of the evidence.

So one must make an argument from authority, taking it on faith that those individuals who are truly in a position to speak to the nature of the evidence in the various scientific fields attest that the preponderance of the evidence is positive for evolution.

What you find, however, is that often scientists are far more confident about the support evolution receives from the scientific fields in which they are not experts than the one to which they are qualified to speak.

Anyway, for anyone to claim that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming is silly. At best you are saying that you take it on faith, based on authority and consensus, that this is true. Right now.

[jwalsh07]

You're a fool because the post was the disclaimer in the Dover case which I posted in response to a direct question and then later made clear that that is what it was. You're a bigger fool because you chose to condescend to somebody who won't be condescended to.

[conserv371]

msnbc headlines "Intelligent Design Banned"
guess it could be said "Stupidity is left to Evolve"

[Jo Nuvark]

[...better to be thought a fool...]

PROVERBS: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

[jwalsh07]

I agree. Look, in most high school classes evolution is a 6 week block of instruction. There's only so much time. I get that. But there is nothing wrong with encouraging students to explore hypotheses on their own.

Furthermore, the notion from a segment of FR that believing in God's creation is a detriment to furthering the science education of students is nonsense.

[narby]

You're a bigger fool because you chose to condescend to somebody who won't be condescended to.

Yeah, you got it out of a book.

[narby]

PROVERBS: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Like I said, out of a book.

[jwalsh07]

I'm gonna break this to you gently and then I won't mention it again. You're not smart enough or experienced enough to lecture me on anything.

[xzins]

Just for the record, I do still believe in God.

However, I think I'll swear off discussing evolution....too many opinions and too many folks who think they know the truth....:>)

Forgive my tongue-in-cheek humor, but I'm a chaplain, so theology is my thing.

I don't think it's possible to avoid a theological perspective on life.

[narby]

You're not smart enough or experienced enough to lecture me on anything.

Modest, aren't you.

then I won't mention it again.

No, you will. I'll be patient.

[Jo Nuvark]

Pro 17:28 Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace,
is counted wise: [and] he that shutteth his lips
[is esteemed] a man of understanding.

[Protagoras]

Then there are those who have grown up and worship *nobody.*

When will it be your turn?

You kids really should spread everything you "know" around while you are still right about everything.

How come you aren't out shooting up your high school or something like the rest of your Godless brethern?

[Protagoras]

Like you said sport, it's an open forum. And despite your grossly mistaken view of what I do here, you ain't the thread police, so give it a rest yourself.

One thing MM doesn't need is inane banter disguised as support from lightweights.

[narby]

Pro 17:28 Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: [and] he that shutteth his lips [is esteemed] a man of understanding.

It's a good thing I don't read the Bible any more.

[Torie]

There is nothing wrong with teaching what science has no clue about, nothing. In fact, it should be emphasized more. What is more interesting than teaching about matters what remain unknown, and may remain unknown realistically speaking for our lifetimes, or for the span of the human species itself? I The key is that the issue has no scientific "answers" available, as opposed to theological answers posited as something in the realm of science.

[Dimensio]

How come you aren't out shooting up your high school or something like the rest of your Godless brethern?

Why would you expect anyone to want to do that? Does it really bother you that atheists tend not to behave according to your bogus stereotypes that you have to insult them for not doing so?

[AZRepublican]

Paul Madison blasts the ruling here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1544424/posts

No idea why the moderator removed it it. hmmmmmm

[NJ_gent]

"For example, the hypothetical changes in a fish may technically lead to a new species of a fish. (Although I'm not admitting that until I review this information you've provided.) But for the theory of evolution to be true, a fish would have to evolve into something that is not a fish and is more complex than a fish. All by itself without intelligent intervention."

While you're checking out the observed instances of speciation (and remember, we've only been looking for it for the past 100 years or so, which is a very small period of time from an evolutionary standpoint), you might also want to take a look at polyploidy and related genetic mutations. Polyploidy is very common in simpler organisms (like plants), and has absolutely massive potential for speciation events. Basically, it's a fast and dirty way to add a ton of genetic material to the pool. That material then has the potential to be shaped in any number of different ways to provide all kinds of new functionality to the organism.