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 ... 2,401-2,4202,421-2,4402,441-2,460 ... 3,381-3,391 next last
To: metmom
"If they could achieve that high of a literacy rate with those adverse conditions they had, it speaks very highly of them."

How much do you want to bet that I can prove that the literacy rate of the population was nowhere near 90%?

"If the Declaration of Independence is any example of the general intelligence level of the people of that time, then yes, let's get back to it."

I can find just as many intelligent people today as the number of people involved in writing the Declaration, does that make s just as intelligent?.

2,421 posted on 12/22/2005 9:33:47 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 2415 | View Replies]

To: jbloedow

Same here. Besides, it's late. It's tomorrow already. Night.


2,422 posted on 12/22/2005 9:34:01 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2416 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"The evidence is that there was a designer."

No there isn't.

2,423 posted on 12/22/2005 9:34:36 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 2419 | View Replies]

To: metmom
You know why your research was wrong on the literacy rate during the American Revolution?

They did not include slaves when calculating it.

Should we reinstate slavery?

2,424 posted on 12/22/2005 9:35:59 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 2422 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
"Today we party. Tomorrow we teach."

Or in Latin: (according to InterTran (www.tranexp.com)-- "Hodie nos secui. Cras nos docui" Cheers!

BTW would you be offended at being wished a Merry Christmas?

2,425 posted on 12/22/2005 9:37:45 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67
Be careful. We may be discovering evidence of an establishment of religion here.

Once again:

Religious people accepting scientific concept A does not make scientific concept A religious in nature.

Religious people concocting collection of conjecture B for the sole purpose of advancing their religious beliefs while trying to disguise the elements of it that would very clearly expose it as being religious in nature does make collection of conjecture B religious.
2,426 posted on 12/22/2005 9:38:44 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2420 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"(5) The censorship of creation science has at least two harmful effects. First, it deprives students of knowledge of one of the two scientific explanations for the origin of life and leads them to believe that evolution is proven fact; thus, their education suffers and they are wrongly taught that science has proved their religious beliefs false. Second, it violates the Establishment Clause. The United States Supreme Court has held that secular humanism is a religion. Id., at E-36 (Sen. Keith) (referring to Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, n. 11 (1961)); 1 App. E-418 (Sen. Keith); 2 id., at E-499 (Sen. Keith). Belief in evolution is a central tenet of that religion. 1 id., at E-282 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-312 -- E-313 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-317 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-418 (Sen. Keith); 2 id., at E-499 (Sen. Keith). Thus, by censoring creation science and instructing students that evolution is fact, public school teachers are now advancing religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. 1 id., at E-2 -- E-4 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-36 -- E-37, E-39 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-154 -- E-155 (Boudreaux paper); id., at E-281 -- E-282 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-313 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-315 -- E-316 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-317 (Sen. Keith); 2 id., at E-499 -- E-500 (Sen. Keith)." Justice Scalia in Edwards v Aguillard
2,427 posted on 12/22/2005 9:40:08 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2392 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
You live in a shell of your own making. I am Catholic. You have nothing to teach me about the teachings and dogma of the Catholic Church.

But I am still waiting for you to back up your foolish false assertion vis a vis my alleged numerous lectures on the vocabulary of science.

Will that be happening any time soon?

And how about the bet?

2,428 posted on 12/22/2005 9:44:08 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2417 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
First obiter dictum, now trying to prove court prescedent by quoting from a dissenting opinion?
2,429 posted on 12/22/2005 9:44:58 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2427 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
First obiter dictum, now trying to prove court prescedent by quoting from a dissenting opinion?

You simply can not bust out of the shell. Don't take this to heart but I accept Justice Scalia as a higher authority on constitutional law than either you or I.

2,430 posted on 12/22/2005 9:49:43 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2429 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Aother dissenting opinion:




Mr. Justice Curtis, joined by Mr. Justice McLean, dissenting.



I dissent from the opinion pronounced by the Chief Justice, and from the judgment which the majority of the court think it proper to render in this case... .



To determine whether any free persons, descended from Africans held in slavery, were citizens of the United States under the Confederation, and consequently at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, it is only necessary to know whether any such persons were citizens of either of the States under the Confederation, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.



Of this there can be no doubt. At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, all free native-born inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens... .



I dissent, therefore, from that part of the opinion of the majority of the court, in which it is held that a person of African descent cannot be a citizen of the United States; and I regret I must go further, and dissent both from what I deem their assumption of authority to examine the constitutionality of the act of Congress commonly called the Missouri Compromise act, and the grounds and conclusions announced in their opinion.



Having first decided that they were bound to consider the sufficiency of the plea to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, and having decided that this plea showed that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction, and consequently that this is a case to which the judicial power of the United States does not extend, they have gone on to examine the merits of the case as they appear on the trial before the court and jury, on the issues joined on the pleas in bar, and so have reached the question of the power of Congress to pass the act of 1820. On so grave a subject as this, I feel obliged to say that, in my opinion, such an exertion of judicial power transcends the limits of the authority of the court... .


2,431 posted on 12/22/2005 9:53:57 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2429 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez

It could be about either the school or the neighborhood or other things not mentioned yet.


2,432 posted on 12/22/2005 9:58:02 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2414 | View Replies]

To: metmom
These galloots want to confuse the separation of the church and state with religion and state.

The Constitution spoke to the separation of the church and state. This was a reaction to the state church of England of which the king was head of, and all had to pay a tax towards it.

Wolf
2,433 posted on 12/22/2005 10:01:32 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2410 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez

The literary rate was only 90% in New England. The south had hordes of illiterate whites, indeed some of the planter class in Virginia were near illilerate. New England had the highest literary rate on the planet back then.


2,434 posted on 12/22/2005 10:06:40 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2424 | View Replies]

To: metmom; xzins; jwalsh07
I remember that controversy and the meltdown that ensued when it was proposed. I think that the same thing is happening in the ID debate now. It should be interesting to see where this ends up some years down the road.

Some years down the road all those who disparged the idea of an intelligent designer will get a chance to meet him.

2,435 posted on 12/22/2005 10:11:37 PM PST by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2341 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

You are quite naughty in your use of the term "creationism." You are confusing and frustrating your interlocutors by your eclectic/limited hangout/sui generis use of the term. Very naughty. It is amazing they can't get any traction. If the debate continues to be so one sided, I might have to help them out. :)


2,436 posted on 12/22/2005 10:15:12 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2401 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez; metmom
Gonzalez ol' buddy 'Ur making some pretty bizarre logical connections there.

In fact, connections so bizarre those connections do not exist, 'cept in that cesspool of a mind there.

SSoooOOOOOOOOOooo..
Answer your question -- Should we reinstate slavery?

Answer your question to why -- Should we reinstate slavery to get a good read on a historical literacy rate?? LOL goofball.

Gonzalez ol' buddy, 'U a velly funny man.

Wolf
2,437 posted on 12/22/2005 10:15:30 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2424 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

Luis was just exploiting for his own purposes and amusement a ludicrous factual assertion.


2,438 posted on 12/22/2005 10:17:10 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2437 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Just a quick response to your post #2326: you appear to think that a student in a science class is expected to incorporate everything he hears into a belief system comparable to a religious belief system. That's not the way it's supposed to work (and if it does work that way at a school with which you're familiar, you should complain...I would).

A teacher of an empirical science ought to continually remind her students that what they're being taught is (ideally) the current best account of the phenomena they're studying...not that it's the final word or the gospel truth.

2,439 posted on 12/22/2005 10:25:05 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2326 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
The constitution spoke about the establishment of religion, and textualists interpret that as proscribing the establishment of a formal state religion. The term "separation" came about in a SCOTUS opinion handed down during my lifetime I think, quoting Jefferson or something (I think Hugo Black did it, but that is a guess). Neither separation or the textualist establishment view is current SCOTUS law. Current SCOTUS law emphasizes the word "neutrality." Government must not take sides either in fostering or thwarting religion.

That I think is about right, although as we all know, the devil is in the details. If government does not foster moral values fostered by religion, and is not careful in not suffocating the hen that lays the golden eggs as it were, we are carrying a chain and ball when it comes to attempting to move to fashion prudent public policy for the public good, and for the moral health of the fruited plain, and all who reside upon it, including inter alia, this secular humanist near atheist.

And there you have it.

2,440 posted on 12/22/2005 10:32:00 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2433 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,401-2,4202,421-2,4402,441-2,460 ... 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