Intelligent Design case decided - Dover, Pennsylvania, School Board loses [Fox News Alert]

Fox News | 12/20/05

[Diamond]

Now, for the 3rd or fourth time, what is your evidence for the existence of a deity? Put your cards on the table or fold. This is getting tedious. If I am wrong that there is no objective evidence for God's existence, enlighten me.

Are you ready? Here it is.

You already have knowledge of God. God's existence is plainly evident to you. You resist it and attempt to suppress it, but you already have it, and it is implicit in your very replies.

You cannot even get out of the starting gate demanding evidence, or using logic, or rationality, or subjecting God to your scientific tests, believing what you mind tells you is true, or objecting to His existence, etc., without first assuming some standard of truth, the intelligibility of which you take for granted, but which utterly depends on God's existence. You acknowledge these sorts of metaphysical realities in your replies, in fact, you presuppose them, but in your world view you have no way to account for them.

I can go into more detail. And/or, if you will, read this short, classic piece. I can't think off the top of my head where it has been better stated. It will save a lot of time and bandwidth.

Do I expect you to agree with any of this? No.

Cordially,

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"IC may not work for you but I think Behe knows what he is talking about."

He doesn't. The bacterial flagellum has been shown not to be IC. The complex of genes that make it have been demonstrated to exist with parts missing. The genes in that case work to do something different than locomotion. It is a great example of how evolution works with is available.

All of his other examples have the same problems.

"My whole premise is that since there is this much discussion about origins it simply shows there is lack of agreement and our public school children should be allowed to hear these different competing ideas as to origins."

The disagreement is political, not scientific.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You already have knowledge of God. God's existence is plainly evident to you. You resist it and attempt to suppress it, but you already have it, and it is implicit in your very replies."

Mystical horse manure. I didn't think you had any objective evidence, and I was right.

"You cannot even get out of the starting gate demanding evidence, or using logic, or rationality, or subjecting God to your scientific tests, believing what you mind tells you is true, or objecting to His existence, etc., without first assuming some standard of truth, the intelligibility of which you take for granted, but which utterly depends on God's existence."

Sure I can. The existence of rationality is not evidence of God. Period.

[RunningWolf]

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

No problem at all Virginia

But to go forward (because You guys are so evasive), I must obtain answers from you CarolinaGuitarman and Dimensio to the following questions.

Do you assert that there are no, zero, nada, none, Doctoral thesis based on Pilltdown man?

Do you assert that there are no, zero, nada, none, PHD thesis based on Pilltdown man?

Is it your assertion that number of thesis on Pilltdown man is not exactly 500?

Finally you need to say here what constitutes 'evidence' or 'proof' to existence of thesis based on Pilltdown man would be to you.

Now don't fail to answer the questions. Perhaps you and the other two can see the results of that.

Now guess what, I already know a few of the answers to these questions. I just need these assertions from you, and the other two in order to go forward with on this.

Wolf

[jwalsh07]

Do you feel enlightened now?

[jwalsh07]

Lets keep it real js. I replied to your statement declaring that the board mandated "teaching". They did nothing of the sort in Dover as evidenced by the opening paragraphs in the judges opinion.

If you want to argue that a school board has no power to issue disclaimers, then argue that. Just the facts man, just the facts.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

The bacterial flagellum has been shown not to be IC.

Says you!

I suggest you read Mike Gene's essays on the flagellum.

www.idthink.net

[2nsdammit]

Incidentally, his book (the one in question) title is "On the Origin of Species".

Here is the text, should you choose to at least be informed as to what you are arguing against:

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/origin_of_species/

[Quark2005]

Why don't you continue your "research" and read "Darwin's Black Book" by Michael Behe who is a professor of biology at Pennsylvania Lehigh University. His concept of "irreducible complexity" proves the fallacy in Darwin's theory. In his book, Behe illustrates that an interdependent system such as a mousetrap needs ALL components interlacing in order to function as a mousetrap. If only one component is changed, the entire system would cease to function.

Behe's ideas are essentially nothing new, and are identical in principle to the flawed watchmaker arguments of William Paley over a century ago. Behe's claims that complex systems systems cannot evolve their components individually is false (it ignores the principle of exaptation, for one).

Behe's work on intelligent design has never undergone any significant peer review. Bypassing peer review and publishing "findings" in a (very bad, in this case) book is not considered a reputable method of conveying scientific information. One should always be wary of any scientist who bypasses professional evaluation of their ideas and goes straight to the public with their ideas (lest concepts like these become part of high school science curricula.)

An identification of the fallacies in Darwin's Black Box

Open-mindedness, critical thinking and careful study should be the badge of scientists.

And they are. But one can't be so open-minded that his/her brain falls out. New ideas have to fit existing data, and use of the scientific method has to be self-consistent. One cannot rightfully decry that someone who ignores the vast evidence supporting evolution isn't getting their fair shake in the scientific theater. Close-mindedness is anathema to science; but so is ignoring information.

But today in the public schools, this is not the case.

"Lack of open-mindedness" is hardly the greatest problem in public schools (contrary to the opinions of many liberals in the field of education). A lack of basic understanding of English, math, history and science is the greatest problem, and the efforts of creationists contribute to the problem.

Evolution curriculum ridicules creationism and the Christian faith. If you are Christian,madam and your children are getting evolution taught to them, you will see a difference that you will not appreciate.

Creationism in the science arena deserves to be derided. As a scientific concept, it has been repeatedly and utterly falsified. Evolution has nothing to say about the Christian faith; and many of us are quite fine reconciling the two with one another. As for those who aren't, maybe it's high time to realize that science is not their enemy lest they themselves become fossils.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I hope you don't tell your children they came from muck and goo. Because if you do, eventually they will begin to act that way. That's the trouble with many people in our society. They have lost hope. Anyone would if they thought they came from primordial sloop. You are just playing into the hands of the secular humanists and their religion of evolution.

I hope you don't tell your children that the earth revolves around a small sun in a small corner of one galaxy among many, rather than telling them that the sun and all the stars and the entire heavens revolve around the earth, the center of God's creation. Because if you terll your children that we are a tiny, insignificant part of a huge cosmos, they will start to act like that.

[metmom]

Well, we're SUPPOSED to be living in a representative republic. I can see that it doesn't always work that way. When judges can overrule things, it renders the system pretty useless. I can see P-Marlows point everytime the ACLU chips away at our freedoms and with every 9th circuit court decision. Nevertheless, we need to keep trying because every once in a while there are flashes of sanity; like the recent ruling by the 6th Ciruit Court of Appeals: www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1544226/posts

[RogueIsland]

Did you go first-class?

Steerage.

[2nsdammit]

How dare you suppose to be able to define the nature of God. This is the single most frightening and disturbing thing in all of this discussion.

To claim that your idea, and your idea alone is the "One True Answer", is the path which leads to the "convert or die" doctrine that we see so plainly in the news of radical Islam today.

How dare you to define my concept of God, or tell me that my God is false? Truth is, you don't have any idea of my understanding of God.

[Diamond]

The existence of rationality is not evidence of God.

What is rationality in a purely material universe? How do you account for it? If the sentiments expressed in your posts are nothing but the function of your brain, and your brain nothing but the by-product of irrational physical processes what reason do you have for trusting them? In order for you to think you have to claim for your own reasoning a validity that is not credible if there is nothing beyond the chemical reactions in your head.

Cordially,

[metmom]

If the parents don't like ID being simply addressed in the class, or a disclaimer about the ToE mentioned, then they have the option to pull their kids out and homeschool them. The same option that is offered to creationists/Christians every time they object to what the schools are doing. It does work both ways. Why should "evolution/no creation" be taught and if you don't like it go somewhere else be OK and not creation/ no eovlution not be treated the same way. If the parents in the district want creation or ID to be addressed, then those who object can find other options for their kids.

[unlearner]

"Have fun fulfilling this part of the prediction. You will have to anticipate every possible scenario for unguided abiogenesis."

That part is what makes it falsifiable. We do not need every possible scenario, just one, proving my hypothesis wrong.

Meanwhile, every instance in which people are able to assemble life (when and if this actually happens) will serve to support the hypothesis.

It is testable and falsifiable. Is it simplistic? Maybe. But simplicity is usually regarded as a plus for scientific propositions. Is it elegant? Perhaps, like beauty, this is in the eye of the beholder.

Until some other evidence is found to support abiogenesis or some deviation in the laws of causality, there is no competing hypothesis explaining the origin of life.

[P-Marlowe]

Your observation is a variation on the Ralph Nader claim that consumers aren't smart enough to make their own decisions.

I have no idea as to how you drew that conclusion.

You have not answered my point which is that this was not a constitutional issue to begin with. Essentially you seem to be arguing against the truth of the statement that ID is a legitimate alternative to the TOE. Ok, for the sake of argument I will conceed your point that ID is not a viable alternative theory to the TOE.

Now, using your copy of the constitution explain to me how the reading of the statement by the Dover School board to school children can reasonably be considered to be "an establishment of religion".

[js1138]

The school board mandated reading a statement that asserted ID is a scientific alternative to evolution and that "Pandas" is an acceptable resource. The science teachers at Dover would never make these claims voluntarily. They are factually untrue and are motivated by the desire to promote a particular religious point of view.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Says you!"

Says the evidence!

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

[P-Marlowe]

The school board mandated reading a statement that asserted ID is a scientific alternative to evolution and that "Pandas" is an acceptable resource. The science teachers at Dover would never make these claims voluntarily. They are factually untrue and are motivated by the desire to promote a particular religious point of view.

So what?

How is that "an establishment of religion" as prohibited in the first amendment?

Explain that.