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 statement that was required to be read said absolutely nothing about all citizens in Dover being required to pay taxes to the local established church.
Well, I'm jumping back out, because it truly is like talking to a wall!
"It may be silent in regard to origin, as well as other factors like "who is responsible," but it is a function of a designed thing ...."
You just directly contradicted yourself, within those 26 words...
You admit that the observation is silent as to origin, then you define its origin! The word 'designed' implies a designer, therefore it originated with a designer!
Would you object to a school board mandating teaching that astrology is a scientific alternative to astronomy, or voodoo as a scientific alternative to medicine?
"Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments."
No curriculum involving ID. The statement makes it clear that ID/origin of life issues are a family issue.
That is the fact of the matter. Federal involvement is not warranted even before the discussion of whether ID is science or creationism, statism not withstanding. Once the Judge ignored that and set himself up as the peer review board rather than a constitutional scholar he became an activist despite his protests to the contrary.
Same thing, though. How did the statement in Dover prevent them from freely practicing their faith?
The school board mandated nothing. Let's stick to the facts. See the above post.
That is a sane a reasonable statment about principle and will not be tolerated by 90% of the people who post on this website.
In defense of FR having 10% of people who are intelligent, think ratioinally and are reasonable about principles is incredibly high.
It isn't, it never has been and it never will be despite what the statists among us claim. The only established religion in public schools is secular humanism. And the statists have no problem with that at all.
To a new medical adviser, when he was 56 years old, Darwin summed up his problems in writing:
"Age 56-57. - For twenty-five years extreme spasmodic daily & nightly flatulence: occasional vomiting, on two occasions prolonged during months. Vomiting preceded by shivering, hysterical crying, dying sensations or half-faint. & copious and very palid urine. Now vomiting & every passage of flatulence preceded by ringing of ears, treading on air & vision. focus & black dots, air fatigues, specially risky, brings on the Head symptoms[,] nervousness when E[mma]. leaves me..."
Ralph Colp in "To Be In Invalid"
"I believe that the evidence shows that Darwin's feelings about his evolutionary theory were a major cause for his illness."
HYPOCHONDRIAC...and charlatan. It's long past time to sweep this trivial concept of life into the trashbin of history slong with his admirers.
I would object, but not on constitutional grounds. I would vote to remove the school board. I would use political influence to change it and not the courts.
BTW much of what we consider "medicine" is in fact "voodoo." In testing drugs the placebos are often found to be just as effective as the actual drugs.
So you agree that the fedguv has no business meddling in the affairs of local schools absent the infringement of an individuals rights?
No, I agree with the statement that people of princple keep their principles and cherry pick their support based on a particular case. This is exactly what I wrote, nothing more.
Apparently reading is not your strong point.
One may stop at the implications and inference. It is the nature of science to be both reasonable and speculative. It may also be within the purview of science to pursue further details.
I guess getting to ad hominen so quickly is what kept you around so long. Actually, that is really sophmoric. You basically wrote that I have no balls. Apparently no desire to engage on a discussion of principle. I would rather lack balls than principle, so I guess I am up on you. For the record my previous response was somewhat of a grammatical mishmash, but I guess you didn't notice.
Darwin------>HYPOCHONDRIAC...and charlatan
All inclusive terms...deal with it.
I asked you a simple damn question. Answer it or not but please stop the freaking whining.
You are one weird darwin fanatic...Too bad he's not around to sing kumbaya with you. He's "evolved" --- into the god of the loonie EVOS.
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.