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.
The reason for these two seemingly contradictory facts is that ID advocates know when to keep their head down when they want to keep their jobs, and when they want to be published. Like the old dissidents in the Soviet Union, there are ways around to get around the obstacles orthodoxy.
What is missing is the ID hypothesis, the clear statement of something to be expected that is different from what natural selection expects. In other words, a research program or plan supporting some hypothesis.
I absolutely agree with you that applied research programs and plans are needed and that the ID hypothesis needs to be refined thereby. As far as I'm concerned the approach to scientific investigation in this area should be is "anything goes". I'm not holding my breath, though. If people's livelihood and reputations are threatened there is usually not a lot of professional impetus for paradigm shifts.
Cordially,
Now you're just being silly. In order to disprove ID, one need only show that a prediction of ID is wrong. Confirmation or disproof of one theory is not dependant on confirmation or disproof of a competing theory.
ID must stand or fall on its own merits. Identify a feature of the world that can only be caused by ID, and then go looking for confirmation. The proponents of ID have fallen far short of that mark in failing to put forth those predicted observations. Instead, you (they) construct a false dichotomy between evolution and ID (formerly evolution and creationism) hoping that a perceived weakness in evolution will count as points for their side.
And in this, as with all forms of short term thinking, peril lies ahead. Should the ID movement succeed in overthrowing the "dictatorship of Darwin" and cast the demon of evolution out of the human spirit, how then will you support your theory?
It's unprecedented in history. I think people in the future will be able to look back to this period as a turning point in history when human beings finally started to grow up.
Unfortunately all we can leave our descendants is the ongoing culture clash with the left-wing. In our favor is the fact that leftists don't reproduce very well and we do.
;)
I never claimed it wasn't a crime. I said that in your philosophy, it is morally neutral, since there is no morality. It just is, it's not right or wrong. In the end, it doesn't matter because nothing matters.
Is it just me or is this thread even weirder than usual?
Oops, first sentence is a problem. The topic I raised had nothing to do with education in general, only GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS.
"I just want equal billing with all the other people you are thanking who never did a damn thing to put that food on your table "
I can't give you that, you see, without payment. I can thank the nameless farmer who raised the food, his employees, the pickers, those who transported it to the store, those who put it on the shelves, the cute checker who smiled at me as she processed my purchases, and the even cuter bag girl who loaded it into paper bags for me. Each played a role in my dinner, and deserve my thanks, even though they were compensated for their efforts.
I can't thank you, however, without some tangible evidence of your assistance. That is the only way I'll know that you played some role in providing my Christmas feast.
It would also be evidence that you actually exist, not just as a shadow on the cave wall, but as a three-dimensional being.
So, you'll forgive me for not thinking of you as I give thanks to those who participated in my feast. There's still time, however. I can fax you the receipt and there's time for an Express Mail payment. Or, you could PayPal me the amount in time to receive my thanks at the Julbord on Christmas.
Sadly, Sophistry is a failed philosophy, for it has no fixed point of reference. It's always relatively weak, even when it argues the strong side.
On the other hand, you are not a relative of mine, so I can't relate to you in any real way. A mere shadow of your namesake, cast upon my cave wall by the fire. The real Protagoras, alas, is gone, and that's a pity. He would really have been fun to debate here.
"I never claimed it wasn't a crime. I said that in your philosophy, it is morally neutral, since there is no morality. It just is, it's not right or wrong. In the end, it doesn't matter because nothing matters."
Ichneumon: That's a valid method of potential falsification in general, but in the particular example you chose, it would be a bit problematic. The reason is that the points of divergence of the gorilla/chimp/human lineages are close enough together in time that the divergence was more like a three-way split than a sequence of clean successive forks. As a result, it wouldn't be out of the question to find genetic "markers" that are common to different pairs of these lineages, in "contradictory" ways.
Help! I just struggled back from a parallel universe where my thought processes operate like those of a creationist. It was a horrible experience. The ensuing dialogue went something like this...
Thatcherite: That's just a typical elitist liberal response. Where does it say in the Bible that the point of divergence is close? Huh? Just tell me that smarty pants? No-one was there to see and happen, and I'm telling you that all you've got is wild speculation, not even a hypothesis.
Ichneumon: Here is a link to a long, detailed, and reasoned article that explains why Thatcherite's potential falsification wouldn't necessarily work, and which points out other similar falsification which would work, with a detailed explanation of the difference between them, and the supporting evidence. All written at a level that a bright layman can follow if they are prepared to put the work in.
... [a few hours passed by]
Thatch: I Repeat my original claim, to another poster.
Ich: WTF is going on? I just explained to you why your claim was in error. Son, you need to learn something before you post again.
Thatch: "That reading assignment you gave me was far too long and had words in it that I don't understand. You are trying to pull the wool over my eyes. Anyway I've got 2 PhD's in molecular genetics and biochemistry so I know all this stuff much better than you. You are just an ignorant blowhard with your copy-and-paste arguments that you wrote yourself. You arrogant people who can pull these fancy arguments straight of your head make me sick. Well, it doesn't make you cleverer than me, no sireee! Have you been drinking?"
Ich: Son,if you've got those qualifications then the material in that link should be trivial, in fact you should already know it and have a ready-made rebutal to it.
Thatch: I never said I have any qualifications!
Ich:Yes you did, right in the post I just responded to.
Thatch:No I didn't you liar.
Ich:Yes you did, here (link supplied)
Thatch: Oh! That! I didn't mean me, I meant my cousin in Poughkeepsie. Anyway, my cousin says your link is garbage. What a joke. And he reminded me to ask you about Piltdown Man, and the Haeckel embryo diagrams? Gee, I guess you didn't realise that I already know that evolution is fraudulent and leads to drive-by shootings, and lactose intolerance, just like Michael Moore says in that film I just saw, what was it? Oh yeah, "Super Ape Me!".
Ich: Go away, troll. And come back when you've got some actual arguments that address my link .
[A couple of days later]
Thatch: I repeat my original claim again, in another thread
Ich: I've already rebutted that, and you've done nothing to address my rebuttal.
Thatch: No you haven't, evo-cultist.
Ich:Here is where I already addressed and refuted your claim (link supplied).
Thatch:Oh Yeah... right... I called my cousin and he said his friend the professor doesn't drop into the gas station to fill up that often. But when he does he'll be sure to get the professor's response to your refutation.
...
Dimensio:Thatch is a proven liar who no-one should listen to (carefully detailed links to relevant posts provide evidence of Thatches lies/delusions)
...
RunningWolf: Testing, testing. Great. This voice rec systems works real good, right... here goes:
Demented, is that all you've got?
Thatch, you are one of the good guys. Keep on posting. These threads need more posters like you. I get too few opportunities to get out my pompoms and practice the high-kicking these days, but at least the special panties still fit.
Ouch.... Nurse, why did you just take those scissors from me? Its only a flesh wound. Not even worth a purple heart in a Swift Boat. Waddayamean this terminal is for staff use only? No! I'm not going back to my room.... aaargghhhh.
"Is it just me or is this thread even weirder than usual?"
Not really. Google "Protagoras" and you'll see where it's going.
Yeah. That was one of the weird things.
[...Is it just me or is this thread even weirder than usual?...]
It's not you. I've read every post (really), and my only
reward is a great big headache. A lot of snippy, petty
sarcasm, little substantive debate. Proof that Evolution
is merely arguable, not provable.
No, what this decision brings to light is that creationists will use any lie or resort to any subterfuge to get creationism, and by extension, God back into the public school classrooms.
Basis in reality? Then where is the physical evidence? Please point me to the physical evidence that supports your claims.
So, yes. This case shows that the mere notion of intelligent design irks evolutionists enough to cause them to make a federal case of it. Ultimately it is a case that will be lost, not only because it is not in accord with the fundamental reality that matter is organized and behaves according to predictable laws, but also because the constitution does not espouse or guarantee separation of church and state.
Please. Let's call this what it really is: Creationism. Intelligent design is simply a codeword, as was shown with the post-Edwards edition of "Pandas".
The plantiffs filed suit because the creationists pulled a fast one. They won for the same reason.
I favor abolishing government schools.
They do a poor job of educating children,
the primary purpose of them is not education
and most of the people who receive this mostly useless largess from the pockets of other people would not need it if they were allowed to keep enough of their own money to afford it themselves.
How about this,,,shall we means test the users and figure out a different method for delivery? Let's close the schools and cut each truly needy family a check for the cost of a free market school. It would certainly be less expensive.
I only propose that as a springboard to ideas, as I do not favor the redistribution of wealth.
The judge's demands for (echoing the plaintiffs word for word) "peer-reviewed" articles as if labled by a BRAND NAME, and as if certain journals represented the only avenue of legitimate scientific publication, is idiotic. By the same reasoning this judge would have eliminated from the realm of science Darwin's The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
Do you really want judges (lawyers) deciding, with universal jurisdiction, what is or is not science?
Cordially,
The real Protagoras was, perhaps, the original troll, although the forum was somewhat different back in ancient Greece.
Our own shadow of Protagoras is merely exercizing the same sort of rhetoric used by the early Sophists. Protagoras was the founder of Sophistry, a school of philosophy which held that all things are relative, and that there is no real truth...only argument.
Modern Sophists can often be found, taking whatever side of an argument appears weakest in a discussion, attempting to encourage the discussion. It's a pretty common technique here on Free Republic, although most of the Freeper Sophists don't identify themselves as clearly as Protagoras does.
He particularly enjoys engaging me in discussions, because I'll play. You can find numerous banterings between he and I in threads on Free Republic. I suppose it amuses him a great deal. I, on the other hand, do have a solid and stable position from which I argue. You will not find me taking a side merely to continue the debate.
For Sophists, the argument is all. The truth is not an issue. Everything is relative.
Ummm, that won't work. Some societies embrace murder. Societies don't define morality.
For me, murder is absolutely morally wrong. It matters a great deal.
Why?
The ultimate trolling technique. Your purpose for being here.
As for sophistry, you could go to a site of like minded people, but then, your trolling would bring an empty net. So you come to a site where you know you will get to argue your point. You are the consummate sophist and troll.
"Ummm, that won't work. Some societies embrace murder. Societies don't define morality. "
Ping
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.