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.

[Recovering_Democrat]

When you get around to reading the judge's opinion, you will see that he basis his jurisdiction on a long line of cases that apply the First Amendment to the states. I don't like it either, but it's based on the 14th Amendment. It's Abe Lincoln's fault.

Also, when you read the opinion, you will learn that the judge found (as the plaintiffs originally complained) that the school board's activities violated the state constitution too.

I'm sure there were plenty of excuses for the federal judge to insert himself into a local decision...a decision the voters could rectify if they really thought it was wrong.

If this decision stands, there will be no reason for anyone to complain about the Ninth Circus' idiotic decisions regarding our kids' education and the local curriculum decisions...

I continue to believe there is no place for a federal judge to decide a local school district's curriculum. None. The Constitution doesn't permit it.

[Diamond]

Just to be clear on this, you are saying that because we do not have the ability to scientifically test for the existence of a deity you can assert with certainty that there is no way to know if a God exists. At the outset you restrict the search to the natural world by the qualification that the only way to knowledge of the natural world is by science. Of course if you exclude the supernatural from the outset then it's not likely that evidence would be adduced that would disclose the supernatural. But again, it is one thing to say that we cannot perform an experiment to test if a God exists. It is quite another to make the absolute statement, from a finite point of view, that there is no other way to know if God exists. I maintain that it is impossible for you to know that with certainty because you can't and haven't looked everywhere.

Math and logic won't help us either. Personal revelation can't be trusted, and certainly is not evidence at all for someone who was not the subject of the revelation. And science is also impotent at this time. Unless you know of a way to know if God exists?

How do you know that such non-corporeal things as math, logic, propositions, mental states, etc do not provide some knowledge of God?

How do you know that personal revelation necessarily cannot be trusted? I can understand that personal revelation does not necessarily constitute evidence that can be trusted, but then again on the other hand, why would it necessarily be excluded a priori?

As far a science being impotent, I think that that depends on what you include in your defintion of science. For example, are the historical sciences legitimate?

Unless you know of a way to know if God exists?

You are not going to like this. So I'm just going to go ahead and say I'm sorry in advance, but I believe the evidence is embedded in your very replies, and in your very nature, but that you do not want to see it, and resist its disclosure. But my main point is that since you are finite you therefore cannot logically maintain a position of absolute certainty with respect to whether there is not enough information in the world to know if a God exists.

Cordially,

[js1138]

I have seen many atheists defend slavery, now what?

I have seen the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, defend slavery. Does that make it right?

[2nsdammit]

"I continue to believe there is no place for a federal judge to decide a local school district's curriculum. None. The Constitution doesn't permit it."

Then bring the case to the SCOTUS, on the basis of the Constitutionality of the jurisdiction.

And, once again - the voters DID rectify it. They threw the board out in the next elections.

[Protagoras]

Lets face it, none of this is really about science or IE or ToE.

It's really about whether or not there is a God and which side will use government power to further their concept.

That is why I have said many times, abolish government schools and there will be no fight.

[highball]

Don't bother, Dan. He'll just keep repeating that his emotional inferences are "physical proof." He doesn't believe that the rules of science apply to his agenda.

Take my advice, you're better off ignoring him.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Intelligent design is the stock-in-trade of science. It no more needs to prove itself than your existence needs to prove itself.

Prove that ID (creationism) is the stock-in-trade of science. Please provide links the support this assertion.

Do you believe that:

...“various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc,”

This is what was asserted by the defense witnesses (Behe & Minnich) during the trial. They assert that these creatures did not evolve over time, but instead, were created out of nothingness.

Do you agree or disagree with their position and why?

[Protagoras]

Slavery is wrong. I have never seen the bible "defend" it. Acknowledge it, but not "defend" it. Your mileage may vary.

BTW, my comment has been taken without context a half a dozen times already.

[jbloedow]

Don't lie, it doesn't become you. You received several responses which dealt directly with the merits of your claim.

Hmm... that's odd, you'd think they'd have shown up in my web browser then.

...childishly sarcastic...

I'm sorry if the distinction between being didactically sarcastic and childishly sarcastic is lost on you.

...you couldn't resist starting out your reply with an insulting broadside against "evolutionists".

I thought I was dealing with Ichneumon chordatum. My mistake. Given the dripping contempt every one of you folks starts out with, this is perhaps a little rich, don't you think?

Most of the evidence for evolution is very accessible with just an ordinary college education and some brushing up on a few specialized topics.

Interesting. It's odd how many times you Darwinists reject any criticism of evolution, even when it is made by a practicising, published, scientist with perfectly good "secular" credentials because, say, this scientist is a biochemist but he/she is criticizing something from the field of genetics. All of a suddden you have to be an expert in the precise field in question to disagree, but you can just have a B.A. from SUNY Bumbleshoot if you agree? Ya, whatever pal. Pick one position and get back to me.

Second, you're "forgetting" about one of the biggest strengths of science -- its repeatability requirement. All evidence and research results, etc., must be verifiable by independent peers in the field.

Too funny. It's odd how human beings in the business world are prone to self-serving corruption. And in government. And in the arts. And labor. And everywhere. Oh, except in science where they are sanctified and operate out of pure motives, beyond corruption, because the blessed process.

Anyone who has spent any time in academia -- as have I -- knows full well that academics are as self-serving as anyone. Academic publications exist for one reason: to get academics published. I have a very close relative who has been a professor all his life. He has the utmost integrity. Yet even when he is asked to peer review an article in which he is the most qualified, he is still frequently not sufficiently familiar with every single area in which the writer is writing, and between gradin exams, doing his own lectures, doing his own research, pursuing his next round of funding, he doesn't have time to be personally validating every single claim. And this isn't even in the harder sciences.

Go look in a random journal and pick a random article. Figure out how many people are truly qualified to validate every claim made in that article. And they figure out how many are truly motivated. And if you find someone who has actually rejected numerous publications because of their quality, find out how many of his publications have suddenly encountered the same scrutiny? This whole process has been well documented. You scratch my back, etc...

As I explained in a previous post, most evolution science is done within a closed loop of true believers and so new theses are never examined from a truly critical point of view. I have read numerous publications where obvious objections are never even addressed. So all of this body of "science" which is adduced as evidence of evolution is essentially part of an incestuous body of work which may be iternally coherent for evolution science, but can hardly be summoned as evidence for evolution against non-evolutionary theories.

As I discovered in a previous thread, evolutionists assume evolution, hence every biological entity that is discovered is considered to be evidence of evolution because we know that it got to be the way it did by evolution, ergo, it is evidence of evolution. So all of nature is evidence of evolution! Excellent science, Sherlock.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Just to be clear on this, you are saying that because we do not have the ability to scientifically test for the existence of a deity you can assert with certainty that there is no way to know if a God exists."

I said I know of no way to know either way.

"Of course if you exclude the supernatural from the outset then it's not likely that evidence would be adduced that would disclose the supernatural."

The existence of the supernatural is an untestable supposition.

"But again, it is one thing to say that we cannot perform an experiment to test if a God exists. It is quite another to make the absolute statement, from a finite point of view, that there is no other way to know if God exists. I maintain that it is impossible for you to know that with certainty because you can't and haven't looked everywhere."

I said there is no way now to know. Perhaps in the future there will be a way.

"How do you know that such non-corporeal things as math, logic, propositions, mental states, etc do not provide some knowledge of God?"

They haven't. Have you any evidence that they HAVE?

"How do you know that personal revelation necessarily cannot be trusted? "

Because there is no way to know if it was a revelation from God or a hallucination. It MAY be true; it's just not possible to know if it IS true.

"As far a science being impotent, I think that that depends on what you include in your defintion of science. For example, are the historical sciences legitimate?"

Yes, they deal with physical, testable evidence.

"You are not going to like this. So I'm just going to go ahead and say I'm sorry in advance, but I believe the evidence is embedded in your very replies, and in your very nature, but that you do not want to see it, and resist its disclosure."

You're right; I think it's mystical nonsense.

"But my main point is that since you are finite you therefore cannot logically maintain a position of absolute certainty with respect to whether there is not enough information in the world to know if a God exists."

Yes I can. My finite nature strengthens, not weakens, my case.

Again, if you have any evidence that a deity exists, it would be helpful if you stopped playing games and actually put it on the table.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Lets face it, none of this is really about science or IE or ToE."

Speak for yourself.

" It's really about whether or not there is a God and which side will use government power to further their concept."

No, it really isn't.

" That is why I have said many times, abolish government schools and there will be no fight."

As good a goal as I think that is, it doesn't change the situation now.

[highball]

I'll cite mine if you cite yours. Post number and thread please.

Fine. Here you are. This thread, post #375, posted by taxesareforever. He used his literal interpretation of the Bible to defend slavery. The Mods deleted it, as they are wont to do with racist nonsense, but not before it was quoted in (among other posts) #376.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1498273/posts?page=376#376

So where are the atheists that you claim have been supporting slavery? I've cited my source, let's see yours. Name, number and thread please.

[conservative blonde]

Ha Ha Ha Ho Ho Ho You probably believe in Santa Claus too.

[jbloedow]

That is why I have said many times, abolish government schools and there will be no fight.

Just for the record, I want to stress that this is exactly the right thing to do. Not just because of creation/evolution/etc. The very premise that the government should be taking our children and teaching them what to think about anything, let alone everything, ought to send shivers down the spine of every freedom loving person. It's horrendous.

The fact that people on this forum are happy that the state, let alone an unelected oligarchic judicialcrat, is not just setting curriculum, but defining the very categories and boundaries within which our children are to be allowed to learn and think is utterly shocking.

I look forward to a day when all schools are private. Then the evolutionists can set up as many institutions as they want where they tell the parents that their kids will learn one and only one point of view, and never be exposed to alternate hypotheses.

Personally I think you should always be suspicious of those people who embrace the power of the state to push their way of thinking.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

You are advocating teaching the narrow, literalist view of Christianity in public schools?

No. That would be up to local school boards if I was forced to keep the worthless government schools and I could somehow get rid of the US Dept of Education and the NEA.

You realize that we have that pesky thing called the Constitution to scrap before we can do that, right?

I don't agree with your interpretation that "freedom of religion" means "freedom from religion". If the Constitution doesn't allow religion in schools, why are the schools teaching religion?

And where do you get that 75% of Americans believe said literal interpretation?

That's been reported from several polls that were posted here on FR.

[js1138]

Do you mean to tell me that we agree that students can separate the wheat from the chaff absent federal intervention? I'll be danged.

The Dover case is rather special because of all the lying (excuse me,"inconsistent testifying") that went on in the school board meetings. The Dover case is particularly loathsome because the school board recommended "Pandas" as an alternative textbook.

The Georgia case is merely amusing. It will just create a divide within the student body like exising divides, such as nerds and jocks.

I really wouldn't care much if parents want to cripple their kids with YEC, except my brother did that to his kids. When they got out of high school and into the real world, the shock was so great they pretty much dropped out of society. They no longer speak to their father. Interestingly, they're fine talking to me.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Open your eyes. If the matter around you is retaining its integrity, you have physical evidence of intelligent design.

LOL! In other words, you have nothing but the Bible to back up your assertions.

Now you know, for yourself, the reason why this case against ID (creationism) in the classroom prevailed.

Unlike evolution, ID (creationism) can offer no testable or falsifiable evidence that anyone can use to verify/disprove the claims of it's proponents.

IOW, it's neither 'science' nor is it 'scientifically provable'.

If it were, you would have posted 'proofs' long ago.

Here's what Judge Jones had to say about the 'testimony' of your ID (creationism) 'heroes':

Although contrary to Fuller, defense experts Professors Behe and Minnich testified that ID is not creationism, their testimony was primarily by way of bare assertion and it failed to directly rebut the creationist history of Pandas or other evidence presented by Plaintiffs showing the commonality between creationism and ID. The sole argument Defendants made to distinguish creationism from ID was their assertion that the term “creationism” applies only to arguments based on the Book of Genesis, a young earth, and a catastrophic Noaich flood; however, substantial evidence established that this is only one form of creationism, including the chart that was distributed to the Board Curriculum Committee, as will be described below. (P-149 at 2; 10:129-32 (Forrest); P-555 at 22-24).

[js1138]

Acknowledge it, but not "defend" it. Your mileage may vary.

Set up rules for acquiring slaves, set up rules that make it OK to beat a slave to death, instruct slaves to obey even unjust masters.

Where is the commandment that forbids treating a human being as property?

[Protagoras]

Speak for yourself.

Actually, I was. in any case, We just disagree.

Further, people of faith can accept the theory of evolution if they choose. But atheists can't. They are stuck. And it's a problem for many of them.

As good a goal as I think that is, it doesn't change the situation now.

It can be one more addition to the many reasons to dismantle that horrible institution. An institution past it's time and purpose. In that regard, I find the whole controversy useful.