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.
Whether you want to believe it or not evolution says something about God.
If we were to find DNA on Mars, or in a meteorite from elsewhere, then the unique origin of life on earth is disproved. Not saying that it could not have arisen from random processes. It is plausible, no?
If we find that DNA sequences process for life in environments clearly different from that on earth, then it would be a reasonable guess that this germ of life is not natural. What do you think? Again, it is not proof positive that DNA is not a molecule constructed from chance - it just seems to make the idea less likely. It could be an amalgam of possible life forms.
But if we find sequences in DNA that encode processes in silicon that are cognates of processes in carbon - well, I would think that the matter is settled. DNA is a nano-molecule designed by a super-inteligence capable of genesis in many different environments.
You are forgetting your own sarcasm....you suggested that those backward religious folks see diseases being caused by their immorality and not by a microbiologic world.
And I said that those folks have no problem believing in that which is verifiable. But when what they're asked to believe in contradicts a basic premise of faith, then they will believe God over believing some egghead with letters after his name.
Would you mind telling me how plate tectonics contradicts us po lil ignorant folk's faith in God?
The existence of Europe is a fact. You need a better example.
Also, you need an example that is hypothetical and contradicts religious folks' first priority to believe their God.
The orbit of the sun and the geographical location of certain countries does not fill the bill.
Just what I need on these threads, another interlocutor.
From a self indulgent point of view there are three types who occupy these threads, those who swear at me, one who swears by me and those that have sworn me off. (g)
Merry Christmas my friend. May God keep my near-atheist friend healthy, wealthy and wise.
A prediction. Once Alito is confirmed, establishemnt clause jurisprudence will be cleaned up a bit with Scalia and Thomas pulling right, Alito and Roberts inthe middle and Kennedy forcing them more toward the center. The other 4 will be window dressing. Kennedy will be the guy with power.
You seem to think motivations are actionable. Treading very near the edge of thought crimes don. Perhaps you should reconsider since Scalia agrees with me that motivation, absent action, is dispositive of nothing.
Uh huh, for example, it might be saying that God is a magnificantly sensible designer, who, instead of engaging in trillions of micro-creation events, chooses instead to design an elegant universe in which events proceed from one natural cause to the next without any need of constant supervision.
Science is, by definition, pretty much, only about natural events of a detectable nature. That doesn't give science any tools for saying anything competent about supernatural interference in the workings of the universe. For aught science knows God may be guiding each little sperm to its predestined egg, and science will have zip to say about it, ever.
I, of course, neither think nor said any such thing. No amount of desire to put a false label on a science textbook, and than lie about its supporting material in court is actionable. Only doing so is actionable. Motivation however, is, and ought to be dispositive in the law. Or, to re-iterate my example, do you think a child who kills his playmate accidently ought to be punished for the same crime in the same manner as a mob killer?
I fail to see how plate tectonics says spit about anyone's faith in God, or lack thereof.
Of course not but your analogy is hopelessly flawed. First of all I said you seem to think. And second of all I said that motivation absent action is not actionable. In your flawed analogy there was action.
When the Dover school board says that ID is OOL theory and OOL theory is a discussion for the family, it doesn;t matter what the motivation is. The action was to keep ID out of science class and remand it to the home.
Those are facts, not analogies.
Motive IS peculiarly ill-placed here. It is the result that counts. In fact motive is rather ill placed in the civil law in general. It is a criminal law concept. But motivation crept in, in the civil rights cases because SCOTUS say a pressing need, and has expanded since like topsy. In the wrong hands, it can be a very pernicious concept. Identical results, but not identical legal outcomes. That is indeed the recipe for a jurisprudential mess. The judge at hand was just gilding the lily, as a self indulgence, per the example of his betters perhaps, but indulging nevertheless.
Well, that's a relief.
How'd we get in the SBR? Someone have a food fight?
Merry Christmas to you too, my friend, a friendship I value. And yes, this near atheist uses the term Merry Christmas. Just a neither piece of the puzzling enigma I guess. :)
If we were to find DNA on Mars, or in a meteorite from elsewhere, then the unique origin of life on earth is disproved.
We don't have proof in natural sciences. It would lend some amount of credence to the notion, but it certainly wouldn't be a proof of anything. Life could still have initially arisen on earth and spread to other planets.
Not saying that it could not have arisen from random processes. It is plausible, no?
Sure, I'd bet money at fairly good odds that some form of panspermia is a solid explanation for some of the timeline gaps, and other anomolies observed by Fred Hoyle, who was the kingpin of the panspermia racket. That does not, however, remotely make ID a science to the degree that it deserves space in a public school science classroom--unless you think the evidence for UFO's, crop circles, crystal healing, Bigfoot and Nessie, also qualifies for classroom space.
If we find that DNA sequences process for life in environments clearly different from that on earth, then it would be a reasonable guess that this germ of life is not natural. What do you think?
I think probably not. I think I would suppose that the place to start looking was that spore migration was somehow responsible, before I'd assume Goddidit, or Rigelian Space Lizards did it.
Again, it is not proof positive that DNA is not a molecule constructed from chance - it just seems to make the idea less likely. It could be an amalgam of possible life forms.
How will you find DNA sequences in silicon? How will you know that the sequences you are looking at have some analog with organic DNA sequences? Do you understand that DNA doesn't produce much of anything but long chain carbon complexes called proteins? What's the equivalent in silicon? Your suggestion doesn't make much sense to me.
But if we find sequences in DNA that encode processes in silicon that are cognates of processes in carbon - well, I would think that the matter is settled. DNA is a nano-molecule designed by a super-inteligence capable of genesis in many different environments.
There is no abstract DNA-ness that can be converted to a silicon template in a manner I can imagine. And even if there was, how does this point to super-intelligent meddling any more than it points to the propensity of matter to self-organize in chaotic environments?
Are we or are we not talking about the Dover schoolboard, and did or did not the schoolboard do something (rather than think something) that was the cause of the court battle?
When the Dover school board says that ID is OOL theory and OOL theory is a discussion for the family, it doesn;t matter what the motivation is. The action was to keep ID out of science class and remand it to the home.
Oh, that's cute. The action was to expose children in compulsory attendance at public schools to an argument, under cover of apparent scientific respectability, that a Prime Mover God exists
Cute? I dunno but I do know that cute is not unconstitutional.
The action was to expose children in compulsory attendance at public schools to an argument, under cover of apparent scientific respectability, that a Prime Mover God exists
God is not unconstitutional either. But that's neither here nor there since God was never mentioned in the disclaimer. What was stated was that ID is OOL theory and OOL theories should be discussed in the home. Neo Darwinian Theory is not an OOL theory so I'm having trouble understanding why your hair is standing on end.
Is this disclaimer unconstitutional?
Naughty again. LOL. Let's see if your naughtiness is caught by your interlocuter. :)
What's the SBR? Silicon-Bred Rejects? Salubrious Recourse to Rights? Studly Breeding Robots?
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.