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.

[js1138]

I was referring to ID scientists' interpretations of scientific data, which are anathema to the reigning orthodoxy.

Grow up and stop sounding like a liberal victim. Controversies rage in science all the time. People get shunted aside for all kinds of reasons.

My point is that science goes where the data is available. Science will always go after reearch projects that generate new data. The problem with ID is it has no ideas that generate research proposals. You don't even need money or credentials to suggest lines of research.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Such an absolute statement comes a God-like all-pervasive knowledge on your own part. "

No, it happens to be true. It's a recognition of my finiteness.

"So, you can see in every nook and cranny of the universe, and beyond it, throughout all time, all space, in the heart of every atom, and every creature, and you can declare with absolute knowledge, "No one can know!"."

No, and I never said that. I am talking about human beings right now. In the future it may be possible to know if God exists; it isn't right now.

"Just because you don't see God doesn't mean others can't."

They can't provide any objective evidence for Him though. Lots of people see lots of things. Some see pink unicorns. Some see God.

"Your statement comes from extreme arrogance and placing yourself in the position of being all knowing. Don't you see it?"

My position comes from the acknowledgment of my limitations. Of human limitations.

[conservative blonde]

I cannot imagine how someone can think he is so bright and yet not admit that what he has is a religion a belief in evolution. It certainly cannot be proved and there are holes in the theory. I choose to believe in God as Creator because I am sure of Him. If you choose to consider yourself a product of slime and goo then that's your choice. I choose to be the product of a loving God and plan to spend eternity with Him.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

I don't recall citing any Bible passages to affirm the integrity of particle matter. I also am not aware that science is purely concerned with "proofs," as you continually assert. If the data and its interpretation are reasonable, then it may comfortably conform to scientific practice.

LOL! Of course. You're right. You didn't actually cite the Bible.

Actually, you haven't really cited anything that supports your assertions, have you?

I keep asking these same questions and you keep ignoring them.

1. Is creationism testible and/or falsifiable?

2. Do you believe that fish with scales/fins and birds with feathers/beaks/wings were created with all of their unique features intact or that they evolved these features over time?

[js1138]

So is slavery is stealing, why all the detailed instructions for acquiring and trading slaves? If slavery is stealing, why is it OK to beat a slave to death? If slavery is stealing, why are slaves instructed to obey their masters?

[Dimensio]

Are you pulling quotes whole from a creationist phamplet? You're good at tossing out inane one-liners, but you're not exactly making any rational arguments.

Evolution cannot be replicated therefore, it is not a science.

This is false. Evolution has been observed. The whole of common descent hasn't been replicated, but that's not a requirement for science.

There are many many holes in it.

Perhaps you can explain some of these holes rather than just asserting their existence?

therefore, I choose to believe in a God Creator who made things separately and not one species evolving out of the next.

This is illogical. Falsifying evolution -- which you have failed to do -- would not demonstrate the existence of a "God Creator". If you want to assert the existence of a "God Creator" then you need to provide positive evidence for such a thing.

If you wish to believe in a God on faith, fine, but don't tell me that it's a logical conclusion from rejecting the theory of evolution because it is not.

If you want to be the offspring of slime and goo so be it. I don't.

It has nothing to do with what you or I "want". You can't falsify evolution by saying that you don't like the implications.

Now, are you going to apologize for repeating the false claim that Darwin rejected evolution? Just say that you were mistaken and move on.

[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."

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

"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.

Sigh. What am I misreading here? If you simply said, "I know of no way to know either way" we would have no disagreement about this epistemological problem. Instead you go to say again that "...there is no way to know". Those are two entirely different propositions. The latter requires omniscience, which is self-refuting.

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.

I'm not playing games. As I alluded to previously I think the evidence is already in this discussion, and it has nothing to do with mysticism, although it is metaphysical. But if we can't even get past the point of what your state of knowledge is about the evidence then we are going to have difficulty proceeding.

Cordially,

[Dimensio]

I cannot imagine how someone can think he is so bright and yet not admit that what he has is a religion a belief in evolution

That would be because evolution is not a religion, no matter how many creationists dishonestly claim as much.

It certainly cannot be proved

This is a meaningless statement. Absolutely no theory in science can ever be proven. Evolution is no different in that respect, thus there is no reason to single evolution out.

and there are holes in the theory.

Name some of these holes.

I choose to believe in God as Creator because I am sure of Him.

There are plenty of people who believe in God as Creator yet still accept evolution. Not everyone who accepts the theory of evolution is an atheist.

If you choose to consider yourself a product of slime and goo then that's your choice. I choose to be the product of a loving God and plan to spend eternity with Him.

It's not a matter of what you or I want, it's a matter of what the evidence indicates. You can't make evolution go away by simply wishing it away.

Now, are you going to apologize for wrongly claiming that Darwin rejected evolution?

[conservative blonde]

No, I will never apologize for the truth. Darwin rejected his own theories of evolution before he died. If you choose not to believe this then so be it. I don't have to prove anything to you. The fact is I think you are out of school this week for Christmas vacation.

[2nsdammit]

Man, that's a classic!:

"Why don't you quit pestering me and look for yourself?"

YOU made the claim of 75%. Therefore YOU must provide the proof of that number.

You just don't get to throw out a figure, and have it be accepted until it's disproven. It's your argument - its up to you to support it. Until you do, as far as I am concerned it's a bogus, made up figure. And citing someone else's bogus, made-up figure doesn't make it fact, either.

And the historical study of religions, their social implications, and their origins is not the same as teaching "This is the one true interpretation of a deity, and all others are false!"

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

I didn't see him falling back on the Bible to support his assertions.

Well, in all honesty, you're right he did not specifically cite the Bible. I engaged in a bit hyperbole to make a point.

It looked more to me like he wasn't supporting his assertions with anything at all; he was simply describing an observation and claiming -- without justification -- that the observation supports his initial assertion.

Can't argue with you here.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If you simply said, "I know of no way to know either way" we would have no disagreement about this epistemological problem."

That's what I said. A few times already.

"Instead you go to say again that "...there is no way to know"."

I have already expanded on that. You have to keep up.

"I'm not playing games. As I alluded to previously I think the evidence is already in this discussion, and it has nothing to do with mysticism, although it is metaphysical. But if we can't even get past the point of what your state of knowledge is about the evidence then we are going to have difficulty proceeding."

More games.

"What am I misreading here? "

Everything.

[jwalsh07]

Common descent is neither here nor there. It doesn't affect me one way or the other. Activist courts do.

[Dimensio]

I've dealt with Fester before. For all of the smoke he blows about ID being science, he has admitted previously that his assertions cannot be falsified, which of course means that they are not only not science, but fundamentally worthless.

Also note that he has stated previously that he starts with the assumption that Genesis is literal truth. And he thinks that it is perfectly consistent with the scientific method to start with such an assumption about the universe and the earth.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"No, I will never apologize for the truth. Darwin rejected his own theories of evolution before he died."

Where is your evidence of this? Do you know something his own daughter didn't know? She said the story is a lie, and she had a reason to wish it was true.

Provide evidence or admit you were wrong.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Yes, yes, and yes.

[2nsdammit]

A couple of hundred years of case law, based on said Constitution, does....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/U.S._church-state_separation_case_law

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Another creationist who doesn't see any need to provide evidence for her claims.

[Protagoras]

So is slavery is stealing,

Yes

Consult your bible for the answers you seek. I'm not playing your childish game son.

[dread78645]

The ACLU represented the parents (plaintiffs) free of charge.

There's still travel, per diem, depositions, transcripts production of exhibits. This will cost the DASD a million and some change.

The case should have never gone to a federal court. It was local and should not have gone past the state level.

The plaintiffs filed a civil action within 28 USC 1343 & 1331 (Civil rights violation; involving a federal question).
A US district court has original jurisdiction in such matters by law.