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.

[P-Marlowe]

Contrary to your expressed opinion here, motivation does matter in the law, as it should.

I assume you are an attorney?

[bobdsmith]

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.

That hardly breaks the TOE down, just as when scientists seed clouds so that they rain it hardly breaks down meteorology.

Since the only observable method for creating new organisms is by using intelligent design

We don't need to observe such a thing to know it is possible as anything material in the universe can potentially be designed intelligently. It is afterall a simple matter of putting different blocks together. When it comes to life the blocks happen to be ridiculously small, that is the cause of the difficulty. It's taken ages to even be able to see the blocks, and it's difficult to arrange them when you can't see them with the naked eye. But that's it. If those two difficulties are overcome then it is pretty straight forward to reverse engineer and start playing with it.

The same is true with any material structure in the universe - stars, volcanoes, planets. It isn't their complexity that makes it hard to duplicate them - it's the difficulty in arranging the parts.

[donh]

Where in the constitution is the so called principle of "separation of church and state specfically enunciated."

Word-lawyering aside, the principle is established in the 1st amendment, combined with the post-civil war amendments which pushed rights established in the bill of rights down on local governments. You may not like this, but pretending it doesn't exist is a pretty thin defense. If you look at their 30 years of correspondance, and their contributions to the argument, there can be no ambiguity about what the designers of the 1st amendment, Madison and Jefferson intended: a clear and ubiquitous separation of church and state.

[donh]

I assume you are an attorney?

Let's just assume I'm a sensible person, who doesn't think, for example, that a child who murders another child by accident on the playground, deserves the same punishment as a mob hit man, for the same crime.

[Condorman]

It can be said that a public school teacher is a state actor be they biology, calculus or religion teachers.

Does it stand to reason that a religion teacher would not be hired were they not of the religion they are to teach?

You're not actually of a mind that religion is banned from the public square, are you?

Of course not. Only that it is improper for the government to prefer one religion (or sect thereof) over another.

[bobdsmith]

This is not accurate. There are hundreds of reported cases of speciation by unintentional human accident--building dams being a prime example

Do you have an example at hand?

[RunningWolf]

Gonzalez ol' buddy you have yourself a little dilemma going here.

The poster had nothing to say about slavery.

She was talking about the high literacy rate that thrived in Revolutionary America and those adverse conditions they had, and yes it speaks very highly of them. She used the Declaration of Independence as a good example of the general intelligence level of the people of that time.

But back to what you brought here Gonzalez ol' buddy, your question that is. Should we reinstate slavery then?

Now I am going put you to your own question yet once again, Lui baby, answer it or run away from it . Gonzalez ol' buddy I see you you are squirming.

Oh yeh Lui baby.. your question...

Should we reinstate slavery?

fingers tapping crickets chirping, MetMom waiting.

Your question Luis baby. Answer it now or abandon this and run away.
Wolf

[P-Marlowe]

Word-lawyering aside, the principle is established in the 1st amendment, combined with the post-civil war amendments which pushed rights established in the bill of rights down on local governments.

The princple that this statement by the Dover School board is a violation of the first amendment is nowhere found in the constutition. The principle stated in the first amendment is that "congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion." It is simply not reasonable to conclude without jumping through 2 centuries of esoteric legal gymnastics for anyone to come to the conclusion that the constitution itself prohibited the school district from having that sentence read to students in the 21st century.

I just wish one of you "evos" could see that fact. You are all apparently so overjoyed with this victory over the forces of creationism that you fail to see that this victory is a defeat for the principles of judicial restraint and constitutional integrity.

When courts interpret the constitution in such a liquid manner then it is a threat to all our liberties. If the courts were to interpret the 2nd amendment in such a esoteric and liberalized manner, then your right to own a gun is as good as dead.

We need to preserve and protect the principles of original intent in regard to our founding documents, otherwise all of our constitutional rights are threatened. This decision shows that the power of the courts to reinterpret and redefine the constitution to suit their political agendas is virtually unlimited.

I hope you guys are all happy. Enjoy your victory.

Merry Christmas

[Coyoteman]

This decision shows that the power of the courts to reinterpret and redefine the constitution to suit their political agendas is virtually unlimited.

I think we saw this first with the 2nd amendment.

Merry Christmas!

[Almondjoy]

I'm college educated so it would be fair to say that I went through my own fair share of biology classes.

Isn't good enough for you? Too bad. There is plenty of examples out there for you to chew on.

[Dimensio]

I'm college educated so it would be fair to say that I went through my own fair share of biology classes.

I've been through college also, and the closest thing that I've had to a biology course is an intro to psych class that I took as an elective.

Why should the fact that you are college educated be an indication that you've had any education whatsoever in biology? Many degree programs don't require a bit of biological knowledge.

Isn't good enough for you? Too bad. There is plenty of examples out there for you to chew on.

IOW, rather than support your assertion you're going to run away from it like a coward, while arrogantly proclaiming your superiority.

[conservative blonde]

May be so, but the public school secularist humanists are using science as their religion to indoctrinate the children into believing evolution is fact. This is wrong.

[unlearner]

" Wrong. Your hypothesis is untestable... Please don't just repeat the same dumb wrong thing again. You have a hypothesis that abiogenesis cannot happen by any scenario at all. You will never be able to test that. If you think you can, please sumbmit a test plan. Stop faking it. If you can't do it, grow up and admit it. If you can, submit plan. Is that clear enough?"

You are repeating yourself, also. But you continue to be incorrect. First, the generally accepted demarcation of science is not testability, but falsifiability. Perhaps that is an over generalization, but unless we are to debate the philosophy of science, falsifiability is the primary standard.

Precedence of a theory or hypothesis is generally given for those which explain the most phenomena and are more universal.

Let me simplify: Life can only originate through intelligent intervention. No need for infinite tests. It is falsifiable. It is testable. Don't let bias and emotion influence your objectivity. You are arguing from emotion.

Saying things like "dumb", "faking it", and "grow up" do not constitute a logical argument. If you can logically invalidate my argument, I will concede.

You may have been one of the ones here who persuaded me a long time ago that speciation is an observable phenomenon which supports evolutionary theory. I did not accept this when I first entered this debate more than a year ago. I have since admitted I was wrong. So I am not entirely closed minded.

Do you feel the same about the law of gravity? It states that EVERY object in the Universe attracts EVERY other object with a force directed along the line of centers of mass for the two objects. Do we need to wait until we can test EVERY object in order for this statement to become scientific?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" First, the generally accepted demarcation of science is not testability, but falsifiability."

If a theory is testable, it is by definition falsifiable, otherwise, there would be no way to fail the test.

[donh]

Do you have an example at hand?

Ring species, bacteria that are resistant to new anti-biotics, mealy bugs, fruit flies, darter snails, various domestic plants, newly minted blind cave fish. The references which will lead you to the primary papers, have been posted on these threads hundreds of times, including on this thread. See PatrickHenry's list of links earlier in the thread.

[BagelFace]

LOL!!!! A guitar player is good to have, of course, but noting swings without a bass player! So, you win the argument!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

<< plays the banjo, lap steel, harmonica, and mandolin too :)

[Virginia-American]

When was Darwin's birthday?

From this website:

The 12th of February [2005] marked the 196th birthday of Charles Darwin. His bicentennial celebration is just four short years away, and many events are sure to be planned to mark this momentous occasion.

[Virginia-American]

: When was Darwin's birthday? Maybe folks can send each other various amino acids, nucleotides and such to celebrate

Hmmm... I'd settle for exchanging a bit of genetic material...

[donh]

The princple that this statement by the Dover School board is a violation of the first amendment is nowhere found in the constutition. The principle stated in the first amendment is that "congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion." It is simply not reasonable to conclude without jumping through 2 centuries of esoteric legal gymnastics for anyone to come to the conclusion that the constitution itself prohibited the school district from having that sentence read to students in the 21st century.

The constitution provides for amendments, and the post-civil war amendments are therefore part of the consitution, and a not insignificant one. As far as I can tell, you have not addressed this argument, which the supremes find rather important. A stand on original intent won't wash either. There was plenty of documented original intent that was totally, and justifiably paranoid about letting church concerns be injected into government bodies, attendant on pretty fresh memories of the 100 years war, the witchburning mania, and church-sponsored, government-implemented genocides. "Congress shall make NO laws..." is a pretty strong statement.