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.
Why not? Along with all of the other aspects of the case we've examined on this thread, he looked at the evidence at hand, and it was clear which side was telling the truth, and which side wasn't. Big hint: If you have to lie to get your views put in a public school science classroom, then those views don't belong there. Moreso, if you have to lie to get schoolboards to put your views in a science classroom, then they definitely don't belong there.
This case was decided correctly on multiple levels, any one of which would have been correct in its own right, but placed together are simply devastating! At the very least, the defendants tried to place a non-scientific idea in a science classroom, they tried to establish a Christian idea in a classroom to the exception of all other religions, and they quite possibly perjured themselves in doing so(certainly they lied to their constituents).
Certainly, if someone can untangle an actual theory of ID that's independent of religion there is a chance to get ID in a science class, but with the current incarnation that is extremely unlikely for a while.
I disagree with you on your last statement, completely and utterly, I think if some other religion tried to pull this stunt, the Christians would be on them in a flash--and they'd be in the right.
Someone needs to revoke your diplomas:
Right. That'll happen. I'm with my extended family just now, and I asked around. Out of 12 California high school graduates, 4 did not take biology, and no one said butkus about it, either in high school or college.
If that is the solution for those opposed on religious grounds to the teaching of evolution, then that likewise should be the solution for those who were "offended" by the Dover ID policy statement being read.
If that so offended them, then why didn't they just skip biology? If the parents were so offended, why didn't they just put their children in private school?
If nobody forced these offended atheists to take biology in Dover then they had no right to complain.
Common descent?
Or common design?
This bald, out-of-context, distortion and misrepresentation of Behe's testimony is belied by the transcript of the proceedings. It reminds me of the way "60 Minutes" operates.
Cordially,
I suspect that both you and your extended family members did take a biology course in high school. I vaguely remember taking one but I, like most of my fellow high school students, probably slept through it.
Now maybe evolutionary biology is not required, but clearly some biological science class must be taken and undoubtedly it was. I suspect that California may define biological sciences in the same broad way the judge defined "establishment of religion"
Go check your transcripts.
Common descent?
Or common design?
At this point I am simply trying to demonstrate that there are a lot of facts out there. That seems to be denied by 13Sisters76. Once we get over that hurdle we can move on to what a theory is and how it functions in science.
You (P-Marlowe) have been around these threads for a while, so you have a better idea of things, but it seems every once in a while we have to go back to the beginning with newcomers. The "not one fact supporting evolution" comment (repeated in a subsequent post) spurred me to post some of the facts.
I would suggest anyone new to these threads visit PatrickHenry's List-O-Links. There are a lot of link
Their existance is sure. But I was talking about the cause of disease. Some people believe in new age healing - that disease is a consequence of "bad karma" or "negative thoughts" rather than microbiological infection. They argue that microbes appear as a side effect of disease, not the cause - ie correlation does not imply causation. They believe that disease is simply a state of mind. They might also point out that the "germ theory of disease", as it is known, is just a "theory". My point was a comparison between these people and anti-evolutionists. If kids who don't believe in evolution theory were to be given full marks for "wrong" answers then why shouldn't kids who don't believe in germ theory be given full marks for "wrong" answers? It's a slippery slope.
Evolution on the other hand is not.....it is opinion. Imo, probably best for a philosophy class.
Yup it is testable - by looking for modern mammal fossils in cambrian strata for example - something which the theory of evolution predicts will never be found.
Genetics. You simply reverse engineer the previously designed product and then determine what genetic codes and information you need to design the new organism in the way you want.
Seems to me that the geneticists are using the "creation model" in creating new orgainsims. They certainly aren't changing the environment and then waiting for the changes to occur on an evolutionary level. They are actively involved in "intellgently designing" new organisms.
Why not just build the new organism in the first place?
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
The is the part that is truly disturbing. These kids are forced to answer a specific way about a quasi-scientific opinion, and if they don't answer in a way that violates their conscience, their good sense, and their religion, then they are penalized on a standardized test that controls their graduation.
That is abominable.
---
So, if the question is about astronomy, and they are asked wether the sun orbits the earth or vice versa, they should be able to answer either way, depending on their religious views on the matter?
What if their religion claims that Europe doesnt exist? Should they get the option of answering geography questions any way they like?
Organisms evolve. I think that is well established by observable science. However, the inherent ability of an organism to evolve is not explained by Darwinian Theory and there is no proof that the ability of a species to evolve "evolved" without direction.
Darwinian Evolutionary Theory is a legitimate hypothesis to explain the changes within the species. It does not, however, explain the species itself.
LOL! That is where the TOE breaks down. Geneticists must reverse engineer that which they cannot create out of nothing or even out of the dust of the earth, i.e., life.
Even if they were able to create life, they would not be using an evolutionary model to create it, they would be using intelligent design -- which is what they use to make genetic changes right now.
Since the only observable method for creating new organisms is by using intelligent design, I am flabberghasted that the introduction of the mere idea of intelligent design is somehow a violation of the constitution.
As a matter of fact, I just did, since I keep my transcripts fairly handy, right where I store my birth certificate and my DD-214, although there was no need--I remember quite well how pleased I was to discover I could go right ahead with chem and physics, and avoid biology.
Where's the leverage in this argument, anyway? For it to matter, you have to provide a convicing argument that evolutionary theory is a religious theory of a well-established religion opposed to the notion of the existence of a prime mover God, which has not been done. A tiresomely repeated statement to the contrary notwithstanding. Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the existence, or non-existence of God, so making evolutionary theory a state requirement for graduation does not a case against God in the curriculum make.
This is not accurate. There are hundreds of reported cases of speciation by unintentional human accident--building dams being a prime example. There are also hundreds of observations of speciation in the wilds.
I am flabberghasted that the introduction of the mere idea of intelligent design is somehow a violation of the constitution.
the "mere idea" is not a violation of the constitution. There won't be significant objections if you want to teach it in history or sociology class. Stapling the idea onto a science textbooks, where it will amount to advocacy, against the advice of scientists, and for judicially demonstrated religious reasons, is. Contrary to your expressed opinion here, motivation does matter in the law, as it should.
And explaining in history class what some people believe, and what the effects of that belief have been, does not amount to advocacy. Pasting the same theories into science books, is attempting to suggest that there may be scientifically objective underpinnings of those beliefs, and that IS advocacy and it does violate the principle of separation of church and state.
Nor proof otherwise. There are no proofs in natural sciences. Darwinian theory does not examine the question of where "the ability of an organism to evolve" came from. Darwin said Goddidit, most likely, at the end of "Origin of Species".
Darwinian Evolutionary Theory is a legitimate hypothesis to explain the changes within the species. It does not, however, explain the species itself.
I haven't much of a clue as to what you are trying to say. Are you trying to talk about micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution? Or do you mean the existence of speciation in general? If the former, there's no such distinction in science, if you mean the latter, than I agree: Darwinian theory does not attempt to deal with where speciation comes from. It describes what happened once speciation was possible.
Found the transcript here: http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day11PMSession.pdf
The relevant section starts on Page 34 and runs through Page 45 or so. However, there's nothing in Behe's statements here that contradict the Judge's decision. He DID say those things (TWICE!). He tries to weasel out of why it isn't a Theory NOW, but one wouldn't need to play games with semantics if he used the accepted definition of a theory instead of one that he wishes were actually the definition. There's the evidence, I'll let everyone decide their own opinion.
Where in the constitution is the so called principle of "separation of church and state specfically enunciated."
The 6th Circuit just stated that there is no such thing as a constitutional "separation of church and state". Will we give as much deference to the opinion of the 6th Circuit as you give to this judge?
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.