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.
"You're not one of those who ignorantly thinks that evolution supposedly violates the laws of thermodynamics, are you?"
Yes, I am one of those except i'm not ignorant.
Obviously, I believe in microevolution which has nothing in common with Darwin. All creationists and ID theorists have no problem with microevolution. We might have problems with certain extrapolations...
If you look at the number of people who reject Darwin or any other cheap imitations of Darwin, statistically speaking, your going to have tons of physicians, chemists, nurses, etc. who somehow managed to find success without being a "believer" Think about it!
Later, it's late
Though not a surprising result, this is great news.
LOL.
Later, it's late
Bailing out just in time to avoid answering that I see.
Yes, you did provide a very good link, though the title was misleading. Surely you remember this very clear statement in your article:
The study didn't generate a new number expressing how similar or different chimpanzee DNA is from human DNA. (emphasis mine)
Your claim that this is somehow a problem for evolutionary theory is false and has already been addressed many times. In reality, the study of chimp DNA has greatly validated evolutionary theory and fulfilled very specific predictions made by the theory, the hallmark of a solid scientific concept.
Government schools are the pits. And they are rife with agenda pushing leftists. Many of whom love ToE because to them it means they can push their secular religion of humanism on unsuspecting children and win recruits for their warped cause.
Abolish government schools, and the debate disappears.
Haven't yet had a chance to read the opinion, but an interesting point came to mind, which is mostly an intellectual exercise.
Since it appears that the 'new' school board is not going to appeal this decision, what would happen if some future school board decided that it was appropriate to make a statement similar to the one the 'old' school board wanted?
Some future school board is not a party to this particular case, especially if all the members are different.
A further interesting factor is that if there is no judicial review of the trial court decision because the 'new' school board declined to appeal, just how binding is this decision on a future board. This may factor in because there is not currently an adversarial relationship between the plaintifs and the current school board.
Since future school board members are not parties to this law suit, res judicata may very well not apply to a future case.
As a practical matter for the near future, it doesn't make a difference. It would be interesting if the current school board authorized the defense attorneys to pursue an appeal that would conclusively determine any future similar case. That would certainly entail some risks for both parties and I think the current school board/plaintiffs would be wise to simply let things stand as they currently are.
If the Cobb County School Board case is decided in favor of the school board and it goes to the USSC, the Dover case could be, as a practical matter, overturned.
While the evolutionists clearly won the battle in the Dover case, the war is far from over.
They would be held in contempt if they persisted, most likely.
Some future school board is not a party to this particular case, especially if all the members are different.
But the school district, as an entity, is a party to the case, and will continue to be bound by the ruling. It has to be that way - if not, school boards, corporations, and all sorts of collective entities could defer some adverse judgement by simply firing their boards of directors or whatever.
Yup. What proofs are being offered to support ID?
It would be better if you did not infer from my own writings that I claim intelligent design to be scientifically provable.
Do you believe ID to be 'science' or 'scientifically provable'?
The only thing obvious is that the notion intelligent design irks evolutionists enough that they want to make a federal case of it.
Since ID could not make it's case in a court of law, why should it be presented in school as something it's not?
This thread may not have enough keywords yet...
Regarding your post #1512...I bet he does not get accused of doing that either...
This thread may not have enough keywords yet...
That's just what I was thinking when I woke up and checked it a while ago...so I added another...
Also, to quite a few posters on this thread, including one you responded to at length a little earlier, I proffer this one-sentence parable:
If you glance in the direction of a very distant peak at dusk without your glasses on, you're unlikely to catch sight of either the peak or the mountain beneath it.
Later, bud...
HAHAHAHAHA!!!
Muslims call such doings 'taqiyya'.
>How come you aren't out shooting up your high school or something like the rest of your Godless brethern?My, my. I'm reminded of the line from B. F. Skinner's Walden Two, where the behavioral scientist running the utopian community says:
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?
"I remember the rage I used to feel when a prediction went awry. I could have shouted at the subjects of my experiments, "Behave, d*** you! Behave as you ought!" Eventually I realized that the subjects were always right. They always behaved as they should have behaved. It was I who was wrong. I had made a bad prediction."(And no, I'm not arguing for behaviorism! :-)
The scientific method necessitates an acting on faith - a hunch that is later verified by experiments. That's the sense I meant it in, narb.
Your analogy is still weak. But let me take this discussion back to where it belongs. It is a fact that there remains a debate, locally and nationally, that the TofE is not accepted as valid by everyone. Therefore a school board, governed locally, wants to bring up that fact and merely mention an alternative. It takes less than five minutes to bring it up in class, whereas the TofE is taught for 19 full sequential periods in a semester. I don't see where the problem lies.
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.