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

Fox News | 12/20/05

[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.

[Recovering_Democrat]

It was the voters who took the decision to Court...

The reports I saw said it was 11 gripers who demanded federal intervention into something they were too wimpy to take on themselves.

[Condorman]

I hope science recovers from this near death blow in Dover.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The reports I saw said it was 11 gripers who demanded federal intervention into something they were too wimpy to take on themselves."

And they are not part of "the people"?

The rest of the "gripers" took to the booth, and threw out the school board in overwhelming numbers.

So, why do you have a problem with the people of Dover deciding what they want in the Dover school curriculum?

[RogueIsland]

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

Ah, well played. I guess I really have just been taking the existence of the sun on faith all these years. I renounce my application for membership in Darwin Central and hereby bear witness to the glory of the great and powerful Ra.

[RogueIsland]

So anything we dream about has something to do with sex

In all fairness to Freud, in my case this my be demonstrably true.

[conservative blonde]

You can wait until you are blue in the face. I will not apologize because I know that I know he recanted before he died. This is the end of it.

[conservative blonde]

I will not apologize for something I have known for years is correct. This is the end of it.

[Dimensio]

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 what are you saying? That science can describe naturalistic events as having supernatural causes? I'm sorry that you're not making yourself clear here, but it appears that you first started by attacking the notion that science can only address natural events with natural causes, and now you won't make it clear exactly where your objection lies.

[jbloedow]

Generally speaking, when someone argues that an observable process violates some law of nature, I'm skeptical.

You have every right to be skeptical. You don't have the right to slander people and treat them like cr@p.

(Well, I guess within your world view you have the "right" to do whatever you want.)

Also, the reason you're skeptical is that God has created laws that cause the physical universe to reflect his orderliness. These laws are in operation most of the time. That is why modern science, including the scientific method, was developed by people who knew that the created world would reflect the orderliness of the God who created it.

If you would be more specific I might listen. I am aware that the problem of abiogenesis is deep and unsolved.

I'm not sure which thread you're referring to. The thread I think we're on was about evolutionists slandering people who claim evolution appears to violate the laws of entropy. Anyway, as for abiogenesis, that's sort of a big problem.

But evolution is observable in real time.

I'd be happy to get into a scientific discussion of this, but given the track record of slander and disingenuity (is that a word?) from "you people", not to mention misrepresentation, I'm not sure of the value of it.

For goodness sake, you can't even admit you are driven by ideology, or certain basic presuppositions; once you can be honest with yourselves, and then honest with other people, then maybe we can make some progress.

[andysandmikesmom]

So you chose to believe a lie, in the face of the evidence, because that lie supports what you chose to believe? Its no wonder you feel thats the 'end of it'...

That speaks for itself...

[RogueIsland]

Maybe it's because in most people's experience, simply pumping vast amounts of raw energy into a system tending toward disorder does not generally cause that system suddenly to start tending towards greater order, even if it does make the thermal equations work.

Answered your own question, huh?

[Dimensio]

I will not apologize for something I have known for years is correct.

And yet you won't provide a single bit of evidence to support the claim that you are correct and you won't back down despite numerous references that say that you are, in fact, incorrect. Defending a lie to the last. How commonly creationist.

Are you really so insecure that your entire view of reality will come crashing down if you are forced to admit that you might possibly be mistaken on this one, tiny issue? Face it: there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that Darwin ever rejected evolution in his life. You've been asked to support the claim, but you refuse. Claiming that you "know" that it is true despite the overwhelming evidence against you and refusing to support your claim of knowledge at all only makes you look stubborn and dishonest. If you're going to go to such great lengths to defend lying about something so insignificant, why should I believe anything that you say at all? Clearly you're willing to lie to support your claims, no matter how transparent your lies are.

This is the end of it.

Ah. Tired of repeating the lie, so you run away from requests for evidence like a coward.

It's clear that you're not a fan of honesty. Instead, you want to build a worldview on lies and you'll keep at defending your frauds no matter how much the truth stares you in the face.

[jbloedow]

I think it is because evidence, facts, scientific studies, etc have been placed in evidence many, many, many times, in this and similar threads, only to see the same debunked arguments be brought up again and again, whack-a-mole-like. It's simple frustration, really.

You know, that sounds real nice and all, but you and everyone who's ever read these threads knows full well that 99% of the arguments from the evo consist of slander, insults, ad hominem attacks, unfounded accusations, and statements like "it's true because I said so".

It usually takes several hundred posts to get one of you to make any sort of factual or scientific claim, and then another several hundred to back it up. When you do post a link to something substantial, I usually read it, rebut it, and eventually you guys give up. (Go back and look at the archaeopteryx thread or the whale thread... don't remember all the details now.)

So spare me the "frustration" nonsense.

[Dimensio]

So you chose to believe a lie, in the face of the evidence, because that lie supports what you chose to believe?

Unfortunately this seems to be a common trait amongst creationists here. They will refuse to admit a mistake, no matter how glaring it is. The fact that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Darwin rejected evolution and ample evidence to suggest that the tale is a lie is completely irrelevant. All that matters is that conservative blonde made the claim initially, and now he or she cannot back down, because creationists can never admit to being imperfect or mistaken.

[Virginia-American]

"For the sake of the argument, what if [reason were evidence for a deity]? Which god or gods would it be evidence for?

Athena, aka Minerva, the Goddess of Wisdom, obviously. Or maybe Urania, the Muse of Astronomy and Math. Why not both?

[ml1954]

I know that I know he recanted before he died.

Time travel much?

[Virginia-American]

to show that the 2nd law of thermo is violated by ToE, you would need to calculate the entropy of an ecosystem before and after the speciation event. Good Luck! Show your work!

[Condorman]

I will not apologize for something I have known for years is correct.

Here is another article of faith. Not of fact, and certainly not of truth.

[ml1954]

creationists can never admit to being imperfect or mistaken.

When you think you are channeling for God, how can you admit to being imperfect or mistaken?

[2nsdammit]

Read those posts relevant to one small part of the discussion: that part of the thread relating to conservative blond's premise that Darwin recanted on his deathbed. It goes something like this:

CB: "He recanted it on his deathbed!"

not-CB: "Wrong. This has been debunked here before"

CB: "Has not. I know he recanted!"

not-CB: "Here's the evidence of a biographer that studied him extensively, which shows that not to be true"

CB: "He's wrong, I know he recanted"

not-CB: "Here is another source, which states that his family said he did no such thing"

CB: "Yes he did, I know it."

not-CB: "Do you have any evidence that he did so, beyond the bebunked source you presented??"

CB: "I just know. I have always known"

[etc,etc,etc]

not-CB: "You have been proven wrong, yet you persist in saying this. Provide evidence, or apologize"

CB: "I'll never apologize - I know he did....."

That's what I'm talkin' about, when I say frustration.