Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design case decided - Dover, Pennsylvania, School Board loses [Fox News Alert]
Fox News | 12/20/05

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.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: biology; creation; crevolist; dover; education; evolution; intelligentdesign; keywordpolice; ruling; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,061-2,0802,081-2,1002,101-2,120 ... 3,381-3,391 next last
To: Fester Chugabrew; memetic
FC said: ... many religions posit God as Creator and Sustainer of the universe... that compatibily easily extends to a specifically Christian point of view. So what?

The Hindu Trinity consists of the TriGods - Lord Brahma, the creator, Lord Vishnu, the preserver and Lord Shiva the destroyer. Compatable with Hinduism too

2,081 posted on 12/21/2005 10:50:30 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1111 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
It was discredited by Darwin in 1859...

Not that I care that much about the orthogenetic principle in particular, but it's my understanding that orthogenesis continued to have its adherents until well into the 1950s.

And in fact Darwin's ideas about the mechanism of natural selection did not by themselves negate the notion that there was some sort of guiding force (not divine) that was part of the natural selection mechanism.

And if you count the anthropic principle, then it is still alive. Actually, I just found some very serious people still proposing modern versions of orthogenesis (http://www.complexsystems.org/essays/ReviewComplexity.htm)... don't know anything about them so if you find out that their great grandson's nephew's brother-in-law once quoted some evolutionist out of context, try to contain yourself.

A very interesting related work is by Robert Wesson, called Beyond Natural Selection, where he provides a fairly devastating critique of natural selection as a mechanism to explain the evolution of life all on its own, and proposes some ideas derived from modern theories of complex systems and self-organization that are not completely dissimilar from these ideas.

He elevated this hypothesis to a theory by supporting it with lots of evidence, and by giving examples of how to falsify it.

Ya, but you know, he wasn't trained as a biologist, but rather as a religionist, so I don't think he was qualified to speak to issues of biology.

Perhaps someone could post a link to a nice summary... Here's one

Hmmm... your link deals almost entirely with pre-Darwin, so hardly provides a catalog of those aspects of evolutionary theory which have been discredited since Darwin. You really want to claim that the theory of evolution has not undergone any modifications since Darwin? None of it has had to be revised to take into account the evidence discovered since then?

2,082 posted on 12/21/2005 11:28:55 PM PST by jbloedow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2075 | View Replies]

To: jbloedow
...But for just about everything Darwinists would say today about how great Darwin , you can replace "Darwin" with "Marx" or "Freud" ...

Except for the empirical evidence thingy...and the true predictions about what would be found when genomes were sequenced, as opposed to the false predictions of Marx, and the non-predictions of Freud.

2,083 posted on 12/21/2005 11:39:13 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1294 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
All competing theories are welcome except the ones that say "god did it" QED. That is religion and not science.

Astonishing. At least this is honest. You are completely incapable of distinguising your science from your atheism.

First, as someone else has pointed out, the notion that the pursuit of knowledge requires putting certain classes or categories of explanation off the table a priori, i.e., based on presupposition, is profoundly unscientific, and is in fact itself religious.

Second, by whom, when, and where exactly was it decided what "science" is? Some appointed judge somewhere? Some little oligarchy? I could have sworn the issue was the matter of considerable philosophical discussion, but apparently it was settled somewhere, presumably by judicial fiat.

Third, the word science comes from the word scio, which is Latin for "I know", or knowledge. It's about the pursuit of truth and accurate knowledge. Atheism is the view that there is no God. Remove your presuppositions from your science and your science will get a lot better.

To try to proselytize for your philosophical naturalism under the trojan horse of arbitrarily defined science is mischievious, to say the least.

2,084 posted on 12/21/2005 11:40:21 PM PST by jbloedow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 936 | View Replies]

To: jbloedow

This has been discussed to death. Science is about explanaining the natural universe. Science does not and cannot address the supernatural. Any explanation that invokes supernatural elements, including gods, is not science and it is dishonest to label it as such. It might be true, but that doesn't make it science. Complaining that you don't like the natualistic approach of science is simply purile whining.


2,085 posted on 12/21/2005 11:47:28 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2084 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; jbloedow
The more YOU GUYS speak for science... the less it becomes.

Wolf
2,086 posted on 12/21/2005 11:51:03 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2085 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003; metmom
Thank God we don't live in a Democracy. We live in a Representative Republic which has checks and balances to balance the rights of the minority with the will of the majority.

Actually, as is shown by this case, we live in a judicial aristocracy where the will of both the majority and the minority are subjugated to the whim of an unelected arrogant intellectual Ivy League aristocracy.

2,087 posted on 12/21/2005 11:51:21 PM PST by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2065 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
Except for the empirical evidence thingy...

In all three cases the true believers have maintained adamantly that the empirical evidence supported their beliefs.

...and the true predictions about what would be found when genomes were sequenced...

I have to admit, I wasn't aware the Darwin wrote extensively about genomes, what with modern genetics not having been developed yet...

Perhaps you were referring to Darwin's predictions of the gazillions of intermediate fossils that would be discovered in the future. Doh!

Speaking of predictions, do you want to conduct a study together of how many times evolutionists have been surprised by a new discovery which did match what they were predicting and forced them to go back and come up with a revised dogma?

2,088 posted on 12/21/2005 11:57:20 PM PST by jbloedow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2083 | View Replies]

To: jbloedow
do you want to conduct a study together of how many times evolutionists have been surprised by a new discovery which did match what they were predicting and forced them to go back and come up with a revised dogma?

Well the answer is every time

lol

Wolf
2,089 posted on 12/22/2005 12:34:27 AM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2088 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy
.. so now you are going to tell them they can't teach ID as a matter of opinion?

No, just as a matter of science. Until ID makes some testable predictions, it's not science.

Unless some serious constraints are put on the hypothetical designer, then *absolutely any* observation is compatable with "well, that's just how the designer did it"

2,090 posted on 12/22/2005 12:59:19 AM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1643 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
...we find that ID is not science...as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals...

.... Discovery org has a list of articles in scientific publications.

Did DI file an amicus brief? did the defense make reference to the articles? If not, the judge is officially unaware of them, and can't use them in his ruling.

2,091 posted on 12/22/2005 1:49:11 AM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1753 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
No, I think the judge should have recognized this is not a federal question. Instead, he chose to insert himself into what is a LOCAL question.

I have no problem at all with the the VOTERS deciding what their kids learn. I have a BIG problem with a federal judge dictating curriculum in a school.

2,092 posted on 12/22/2005 2:11:39 AM PST by Recovering_Democrat (I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of Dependence on Government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2068 | View Replies]

To: highball
I hear what you're saying, but the defendants didn't BRING the case to the federal judge.

I think it is highly dangerous for a federal judge to dictate curriculum. The community can handle this on its own...they voted out the school board, the school board can recind the previous instruction, and the federal government isn't involved in deciding what kids learn.

I see it as an issue where the judge is overreaching his boundaries. I know many don't agree with me, but I've yet to be persuaded. We'll just have to agree to disagree. :)

2,093 posted on 12/22/2005 2:16:43 AM PST by Recovering_Democrat (I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of Dependence on Government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2063 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

The lack of understanding on this issue surprises me- the claim that evolution is a "proven fact" just isn't true.
All the judge did in this case was declare one religious belief superior to another. And after 150 years of fruitless search for a single fact to support evolution, belief in this theory- THEORY- has indeed become a matter of faith.


2,094 posted on 12/22/2005 2:22:12 AM PST by 13Sisters76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2093 | View Replies]

To: conservative blonde; Dimensio
Do you have one missing link?

Uh.. if you have it, it's not missing.

Did you mean "predicted by the ToE, but not(yet) found"?

Like the Homo erectus, H. habilis, Australopithecus, et al, which were found *where Darwin himself* predicted they would be found? [Africa] 100 years after he published?

And which show various degrees of human-like and non-human-ape-like features? The more modern ones being more like modern people?

2,095 posted on 12/22/2005 3:03:11 AM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2040 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf; eleni121; CarolinaGuitarman; Dimensio

This is absurd. I asked for *theses*; RW gave a list of already-established scientists who were taken in by the fraud.

BTW, still waiting for cites on Caharles Darwin's character.


2,096 posted on 12/22/2005 3:11:32 AM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2080 | View Replies]

To: 13Sisters76
the claim that evolution is a "proven fact" just isn't true... belief in this theory- THEORY- has indeed become a matter of faith.

I simply refuse to believe you are for real. I can't imagine anyone having the gumption to post a comment on a 2000+ comment thread without having read at least a few. Or perhaps one of the 1000+ previous crevo threads that addressed this fallacy. So, bully for you - you got me to address you.

(Psst: theories aren't ever "proven." But you knew that.)
2,097 posted on 12/22/2005 4:36:19 AM PST by whattajoke (I'm back... kinda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2094 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Are you questioning the outcome or the process?


2,098 posted on 12/22/2005 4:57:29 AM PST by freedumb2003 (American troops cannot be defeated. American Politicians can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2087 | View Replies]

To: toadthesecond

I've seen the statement before. And the gaps still exist.


2,099 posted on 12/22/2005 5:00:54 AM PST by Ceewrighter (O'er the land of the free and the Home of the brave!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2003 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American

"This is absurd. I asked for *theses*"

He's not very good with the reading comprehension thing. Or the honesty thing either.


2,100 posted on 12/22/2005 5:03:02 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2096 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,061-2,0802,081-2,1002,101-2,120 ... 3,381-3,391 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson