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 ... 2,241-2,2602,261-2,2802,281-2,300 ... 3,381-3,391 next last
To: P-Marlowe
So are you being deliberately obtuse? The rest of my statement addresses that, not the bottom statement that you so elegantly cherry picked out at the end.
2,261 posted on 12/22/2005 1:14:10 PM PST by ThinkPlease (Fortune Favors the Bold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2255 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

[WHACK!] Another mole done gone... (or not) ;-)


2,262 posted on 12/22/2005 1:30:46 PM PST by 2nsdammit (By definition it's hard to get suicide bombers with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2256 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67
"Not only must the public schools be free of anything that someone thinks they can trace back to Christian convictions, but now private parochial schools must be confronted by the 'superior' viewpoints of the evolutionists."

What's truly illustrated here is the duplicity of the standards set in place by the religious community. No "evolutionist" has ever demanded that evolution be taught in a parochial school as an alternative to Creation.

You will no allow secularity into your religious cosmos, but demand that the secular cosmos accept your religious teachings.

I want a wall of separation between religion and government for the same reason that Jefferson thought it a good idea; because politicians will try to be elected based on beliefs that they don't hold true, but know that gets them votes, and ministers will preach politics from the pulpit and try to govern as unelected public servants.

"our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own"

Why on Earth would you want a secular school teacher teaching religious concepts to children?

By the way...the Federal Courts did not inject themselves onto the fray, they were brought into it by the people.

2,263 posted on 12/22/2005 1:41:39 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2249 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
"I have no problem at all with the the VOTERS deciding what their kids learn."

It was the voters who took the decision to Court, and it was the voters who booted the school board out in disgust.

Works for me.

2,264 posted on 12/22/2005 2:05:44 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2092 | View Replies]

To: jbloedow
[Freud, Marx and Darwin] In all three cases the true believers have maintained adamantly that the empirical evidence supported their beliefs.

It's my understanding that Freudianism isn't scientific for one of the same reasons that ID isn't: it's not falsifiable:

Everything is either concave or covex
So anything we dream about has something to do with sex

Marxism, on the other hand actually made predictions, and has been falsified (eg, the American proletariat is hardly at slave-like levels of misery)

In both cases, there are still believers, but their number is shrinking, and there are no generally-accepted empirical data points supporting Freud or Marx.

The ToE is flourishing. Just in the last 20 years there have been major fossil finds (eg, feathered dinos, the sequence leading to whales), and also major genetic work (eg sequencing the human, chimp and dog genomes). None of this work, which could have damaged or even falsified the ToE, has done so. The results were, AFAIK always, in line with predictions of the theory.

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

I don't know exactly what he said on the subject, but the basic idea is an immediate consequence of his theory, and is independent of the actual mechanism of inheritence: namely, that the genetic details should track the family tree of related animals or plants. This is now considered strong evidence in favor of common descent.

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

No, I said genetic evidence, but ol' Charlie was (Doh! indeed) right again. There really were very few fossils known in his time - remember that archeopteryx wasn't found until a few years after "Origin" was published. We now have smooth amphibian-reptile-mammal sequences, the hoofed animal-whale sequence, lots of human ancestors, and, what would especially have pleased Darwin, Precambrian fossils.

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?

"dogma"? be more precise. AFAIK, the only real change (an addition) to Darwin's *theory* was the inclusion of neutral genetic drift. Gradualism vs. punk-eek is in "Origin". Modern genetic theory has made the mechanism of mutation and inheritence more precise, but didn't actually change the theory.

What has changed with the data is the phylogenetic tree. Eg, was archeopteryx an ancestor or an uncle of modern birds? Are molluscs more closely related to annelid worms or to arthropods or to what? and so forth. None of the changes to the tree have been major - eg when Archy was the only know intermediate between dinos and birds, it was placed in the direct line of descent; when older bird fossils were found, it was assumed to be a surviving ancestral species; now with the modern Chinese discoveries, it's position in the dino-bird subtree is more accurately known.

Note that at no time was anything other than one type of dino and the birds affected; no adjustment to the mammal tree, for example.

It's precisely what one would expect as more data is found - fossils are classified, put in the tree, and the tree may have to be readjusted a bit.

2,265 posted on 12/22/2005 2:08:18 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2088 | View Replies]

To: conservative blonde
Taking away the Biblical foundation from public education opened the door to the secular humanism so rampant in our society today.

Argument from the consequences. Logical fallacy. This does not disprove evolution.

You have yet to apologize for repeating the lie that Darwin rejected evolution.
2,266 posted on 12/22/2005 2:10:15 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2141 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
"It can't be "Court agrees with us=Court Good" and "Court disagrees with us=Court Bad."

Good post.

However, one fine detail here.

The Court agreed with the people who were most impacted by the school board's decision, which translates into the Court backing the decision of the people of Dover, who after all, booted the school board out of office as a show of disgust over the decision to mandate the teaching of id in a public school room.

2,267 posted on 12/22/2005 2:10:22 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2103 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman; eleni121
eleni121 isn't here to support claims with evidence. He's here to repeat shameless lies and act like a total coward when pressed with evidence. It's quite clear that he hates the concept of honesty and rationality, given his proclivity for insulting anyone who dares suggest that he might possibly be in error, rather than doing the honourable thing by supplying evidence for his claims or at the very least apologizing for making unsupported assertions.

eleni121 is a creationist fraud like so many others. He apparently realises that his entire worldview is built upon his own lies, hence his incredibly hostile reaction when anyone tries to shake up the fabric of his reality by pointing out that his claims are false. He lives in his own delusions, and nothing he says has any relevance to reality.
2,268 posted on 12/22/2005 2:13:07 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2156 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Correction:

"...who after all, booted the school board out of office as a show of disgust over the decision to mandate the teaching of id in a their public school rooms."

It would be interesting to know the number of people from the Dover school district posting negative comments about the decision in FR.

2,269 posted on 12/22/2005 2:15:15 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2267 | View Replies]

entropic placemarker


2,270 posted on 12/22/2005 2:22:09 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2247 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Nothing in the Constitution prevents religion from being taught in any public school. Classes on Christianity, Islam, Judiasm et al are neither proscribed by the Constitution nor by the Oligarchy.

Can it not be said that a teacher in a government-funded school holds the public trust?

2,271 posted on 12/22/2005 2:23:35 PM PST by Condorman (Prefer infinitely the company of those seeking the truth to those who believe they have found it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2209 | View Replies]

To: jbloedow
You're conflating Naturalism as an absolute philosophy and naturalism as a scientific techique.

No, I'm explaining that science studies only the natural universe.

Astrophysicists and cosmologists routinely speak about singularities, points in time and/or space in which the laws of nature appear not to have been in operation, at least not in any knowable or repeatable way.

Are you honestly suggesting that these scientists are claiming that such events are supernatural? The reason for studying such phenomenon is to further expand knowledge of the natural workings of the universe so that the events occuring there no longer seem to violate what we know about the natural universe.

Stupidity aside, when a scientist who is willing to accept the possibility of singularities, or intelligent design, or divine creation, or even abrupt appearance encounters a situation which appears to fall into one of these categories, he is first going to make sure that this is what it appears to be -- SCIENTIFICALLY -- and then if it is, he will proceed to try to understand every other part of it or its consequences that are non-singularities.

So how, exactly, would a scientist go about applying the scientific method to the supernatural. Be specific.
2,272 posted on 12/22/2005 2:23:46 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2196 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy
I said that ID isn't science and doesn't belong in science class, to which you responded:

But you missed my first post on the matter. If a teacher or student brings up the point that Darwin proves there is no God then a student has a right to bring up ID as a matter of opinion to fight back. Since a teacher or student bringing up an opinion that Darwin proves God doesn't exist is exactly that. An opinion.

If a teacher or student brings up the point that Darwin proves there is no God ...

I've seen Dawkins accused, inaccurately, of saying this. But what is it doing in a science class; it's a theological question, not a scientific one.

a right to bring up ID as a matter of opinion to fight back.

Huh? Why wouldn't showing that the ToE is silent about theology suffice? ID adds nothing to the discussion.

And anyway, the case at hand wasn't anything like the scenario (aka a straw man) you're discussing; Dover was trying to require the teachers to lie to children by saying that ID is scientific, when, as the judge found, it isn't.

2,273 posted on 12/22/2005 2:31:07 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2120 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
For the life of me, I can't understand why the concept of the Sun is so difficult to communciate to some folks.

It's not so hard to figure out. How many times did YOUR mom tell you not to look at it?

2,274 posted on 12/22/2005 2:32:58 PM PST by Condorman (Prefer infinitely the company of those seeking the truth to those who believe they have found it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2236 | View Replies]

To: xzins
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.

Quite the opposite in fact, the church was paying for the "textbooks". But the defense lied about this under oath.

2,275 posted on 12/22/2005 2:33:10 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2121 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
It was the voters who took the decision to Court, and it was the voters who booted the school board out in disgust.

When the people who don't like this verdict say "VOTERS", they mean "people who didn't object to intelligent design".
2,276 posted on 12/22/2005 2:34:39 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2264 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Um, no, that is simply confusion on your part... In fact, I do. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise instead of sputtering about it.... All philosophy of gods is introductory level BS.... It's still crap no matter how many times you repeat it.

Wow... very educational stuff. You obviously have a serious education behind and a bright future ahead. No wonder evolutionary science is done so rigorously. With this type of rigorous intellectual approach, how could you go wrong...

2,277 posted on 12/22/2005 2:35:29 PM PST by jbloedow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2257 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; conservative blonde

Like Dimensio, I wait for you also, to apologize for repeating the lie that Darwin rejected evolution...



2,278 posted on 12/22/2005 2:37:18 PM PST by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2266 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy
If a teacher or student brings up the point that Darwin proves there is no God

Where has this happened?
2,279 posted on 12/22/2005 2:37:31 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2120 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
No, I'm explaining that science studies only the natural universe.

No. I have agreed that science studies the natural universe. I have disagreed with you that science must assume that everything in the physical universe can be explained through Naturalistic means. That is an assumption, and that is a philosophical axiom, not a scientifically derived conclusion. I have said quite clearly that you can study only the natural parts of the physical universe whilst not assuming that every single part of it must have a naturalistic explanation. This isn't rocket science.

Are you honestly suggesting that these scientists are claiming that such events are supernatural?

Can you read? How many different ways do I have to say this? I quite clearly didn't say that. Go back and read.

So how, exactly, would a scientist go about applying the scientific method to the supernatural. Be specific.

Once again, you're simply not reading what I've written. You seem to come at the world so full of your presuppositions that even when reading something in front of you, you can't just analyze the facts in black and white but have to force them through the prism of your presuppositional filter. Just like you do with your "science". Your behaviour in this thread is a very good data point to the argument I have made.

If you can get someone to help you understand the sentences I have written, go ahead and ask them.

2,280 posted on 12/22/2005 2:44:42 PM PST by jbloedow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2272 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,241-2,2602,261-2,2802,281-2,300 ... 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