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.
If you are going to respond to my posts, at least read them first. Mandating a book is not the same as mandating that a book is authoritative in its subject.
You could mandate reading Karl Marx in a history class or even an economics class. It would be objectionable to mandate that Marx's writing must be accepted by teachers as authoritative and correct on the subject of economics.
The Dover school board tried to mandate "Pandas" as equivalent to a science text.
If rationality were the evidence for a god; one who expect a god to be rational. One would also expect the god to be good because one that wasn't would probably end up destroying everything. If it's true that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and we have seen plenty of that here on our planet, then an all powerful being would need to be absolutely good in order not to be corrupted. So then you would need to have a rational, good god. That could give you criteria to determine which gods would qualify and which ones you could eliminate from the selection.
I saw a newer article somewhere that was better, but now I can't find it. Most of the information in this link is 5 years old.
That's a good looking tomato.
Just remember that for every gap you fill, you create two new ones. Eventually you will have more gaps than there atoms in the universe, and ID wins.
A beauty :-}
So why is it that just because a creationist disagrees with the ToE that people assume that they want to throw all science out the window or don't see the point of parcticing any of it? That's a pretty big assumption to make and apply to a whole group of people and it's not true. There may be some fringe elements that feel that way but it's not because of the ToE but a reaction to science in general. I don't know anyone who would throw out the whole of anything just because they disagree with one small point of one part of it.
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
If all men are by nature equally free and independent, all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience. Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. Are the Quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? Can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others?
--Some dead guy, a long time ago.
Are you claiming the above statement is not true? Because if you are, you better go and find more dead guys to read.
I'm not worried. My mind is full of gaps as it is. ;)
At least you recognize that they did not mandate reading the book. They did, however, mandate that people who object to the theory of evolution are still required to learn it and be tested upon it. Nobody required that anyone either read the Pandas book or be tested on it. Hence the worst thing that can be said is that the school board advocated a book which may have had a particular religious viewpoint. That is not an establishment of religion and a requirement that a person learn some theory of science that categorically conflicts with his religious beliefs is far closer to an establishment of religion than a suggestion that if you wish to question that theory that there are alternative resources.
You still have refused to provide any constitutional argument that what the Dover school district did was "an establishment of religion" as referenced in the first amendment.
You could mandate reading Karl Marx in a history class or even an economics class. It would be objectionable to mandate that Marx's writing must be accepted by teachers as authoritative and correct on the subject of economics.
But it would not be constitutionally prohibited!
It would be stupid, but the remedy is to remove the board, not to make a Federal Case out of it.
Again you are engaging in hyperbole. The District did not force teachers to accept the Pandas book as authoritative. It simply required them to read the statement of the board that suggested that the Pandas book might be a good reference for viewing alternative ideas.
The Dover school board tried to mandate "Pandas" as equivalent to a science text.
They did nothing of the sort. But even if they had mandated it, it does not establish a religion. At worst it merely presents an alternative religious viewpoint to consider.
"Your materialistic world view cannot account for the metaphysical nature of reality."
Sure it can, and it does.
"Objective and universal standards of reason simply cannot exist in your purely material world, but you act as if they do."
Horse manure. More mystical nonsense. Objective standards and the supernatural are incompatible.
I started growing cherry tomatoes again this year in another area of my yard. I had them growing in the center of the yard in previous years and every year they would re-seed themselves and come up with no effort on my part.
But then we had a family of mice move in and they started tunneling around and under the plants. The kids started turning their ankles in the holes when they were cutting the grass.
I had to fill the whole area in and nothing came up the next year. The seeds were covered by too much dirt.
I like food plants that grow like weeds though. Saves a lot of effort.
Me too. The grandkids and I just throw them next to the house on the southern side and voila fresh tomoatoes when we're done swimming.
Excuse me but this law applies to our universe and since the claim is we humans have evolved, we are obviously subject to the laws of thermodynamics.
If you can name any physicist , not a cosmologist, who has shown thru scientific proof that we are not subject to the these laws, please share. I believe your comments would fall under a unproven hypothetical that fools some people into the belief that evolution is somehow except from these "universal laws"
Here is just a sample of scientists who see great problems with your sides's assertion.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is just as valid for open systems as it is for closed systems, says John Ross, Harvard University:
"...There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems."
[John Ross, letter in Chemical and Engineering News, Vol. 58
Second Law of Thermodynamics - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution?
Evolution versus a basic law of nature
Scores of distinguished scientists have carefully examined the most basic laws of nature to see if Evolution is physically possible - given enough time and opportunity. The conclusion of many is that Evolution is simply not feasible. One major problem is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
law of science: basic, unchanging principle of nature; a scientifically observed phenomenon which has been subjected to very extensive measurements and experimentation and has repeatedly proved to be invariable throughout the known universe (e.g., the law of gravity, the laws of motion).
thermodynamics: the study of heat power; a branch of physics which studies the efficiency of energy transfer and exchange.1
Decaying buildings. Massive structures may appear to be capable of lasting almost forever, but they will not. The need for ongoing repairs stems, in part, from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics describes basic principles familiar in everyday life. It is partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. Material things are not eternal. Everything appears to change eventually, and chaos increases. Nothing stays as fresh as the day one buys it; clothing becomes faded, threadbare, and ultimately returns to dust.2 Everything ages and wears out. Even death is a manifestation of this law. The effects of the 2nd Law are all around, touching everything in the universe.
And yet day after day, new things are born that are fresher than their parents.
Because the faulty science of creationism is not limited to merely the ToE. Evolution by itself is a ubiquitous concept in biology - it is impossible to study genetic and morphological continuity/differences without it, this by itself is bad enough, but that's not the only science that needs to be distorted to fit creationism. For creationist paradigm to be true, all paleontology basically also goes out the window. To erroneously say that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics somehow falsifies evolution requires a perversion of a basic law of physics. Forget biochemistry, with the absurd claims of "irreducible complexity" of biochemical processes. If the earth is 6000 years old, there goes plate tectonics, soil erosion theory, sedimentary deposition, etc.; basically everything we know about geology. Claims of a worldwide flood construct outright lies about hydrodynamics, meteorology, atmospheric physics and the chemistry behind fossilization, as well. The Big Bang is out the window - there goes all of cosmology; silly claims that the speed of light has dramatically changed pretty much eradicates Einstein and the theory of relativity. Forget radiometric dating - I guess nuclear physics has to be found faulty to support the creationist paradigm. Stellar evolution theory can't work either (if stars are only thousands of years old) - that would require distorting observations of astronomy and yet more nuclear physics. Forget paleoanthropology and cultural anthropology (at least prior to 4000 BC). Let's not forget the faulty applications of probability and statistics necessary to 'show' that natural chemical process couldn't evolve on their own. The list goes on - there's nary a category of science that remains untouched by this illucid attempt at revisionist natural history.
Um, no, that's a logical fallacy. Your "wish" for it to be so does not establish a reason to assume away irrationality (or simply even incomprehensibility), let alone to eliminate accidents, negligence, or intended or unintended byproducts, among other possibilities.
One would also expect the god to be good because one that wasn't would probably end up destroying everything.
Another logical fallacy, although, yes, some people believe that Shiva will come in the end - so "yet" may still be the answer you've assumed away.
If it's true that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and we have seen plenty of that here on our planet,
Logical fallacy - think about how would you establish a counterexample to that one...
then an all powerful being would need to be absolutely good in order not to be corrupted.
No, that does not follow, so Buzz, wrong again. And just what would you tempt a god with that he does not have already??
So then you would need to have a rational, good god.
Buzz, wrong again. See above.
That could give you criteria to determine which gods would qualify and which ones you could eliminate from the selection.
Buzz, wrong again, your choices would still be limited to those gods you "think" you know something about. Then you would have to demonstrate that 1) you have heard about and considered every possible god or set of gods, and 2) that your "knowledge" of said gods is correct, or even meaningful, in some rational sense.
You're 0-for-10 so far, more or less. Do you still want to drag your religious beliefs into science class?
Oh, ya, maybe when the 2nd law was formulated they forgot to take into account the entire natural world!!!! Good point. NOT.
So scientists have never spent any time attempting to think about the apparent conflict b/w the 2nd law and biology?
To quote someone: "Great is the power of steady misrepresentation."
Do you even know the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
That might be a good start in order to see how you're grossly misapplying it.
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.