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.

[js1138]

ID is not an "explanation" until it says something specific about the designer, something that differentiates the designer from natural selection and which makes different predictions about evidence yet to be found.

[narby]

Discovery Institute: The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship

These guys can spin right along with Bill Clinton.

As a matter of fact, in my conspiracy theory sessions, I think the Discovery Institute actually is a leftist organization, sucking up conservative political clout so we have less effect on things that really do matter.

[plewis1250]

How am I misusing the word?? It is part of the definition?? You just do not want to admit that your theory is a belief, because if you did, your argument against creationism would be invalid and either none of it would be taught in schools, or all of it would have to be.
Go read A Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. Quite a good read.
- plewis1250

[justtryingtopassapenglish]

And the same can be argued in response to the evolutionary theory.

[plewis1250]

Didn't take my link

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310241448/qid=1135100714/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-5767668-9338559?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

[isom35]

"to see how thread evolves" hehe, I think this thread is knuckle-dragging...but at least it is not primordial ooze.

[Smogger]

Science merely describes WHAT and HOW God did what He did. It does not delve into WHY.

Your wrong. Evolution, as it is instructed in public schools, makes the point that there is NO "why". It is important for aethiest/secular humanist that this philosophy of material naturalism is fostered upon children at a very young age.

Why people can't see the entire debate over origin science isn't a debate over science at all I'll never understand. It's a debate over competing worldviews, and whom is going to indoctrinate whom first. The secularlist, aethiest, and their liberal allies were smart to ensure that a evolution be instructed as fact in public schools. All of the changes that they are trying to make in society depend upon it's acceptance.

[Bommer]

Good. Intelligent design doesn't belong in science classes.

And a 200 year old unproven Theory of Evolution does?

[mlc9852]

Why do you assume creation is a myth?

[VadeRetro]

And having read this, surely ID probably DOES deserve mention in a biology class, and it should be given all the time it is due, say, 1 to 5 minutes, and then left at that.

I think I figured out Buchanan is an idiot around 1991. For sure, he's out of his depth in a mud puddle writing about the state of the evidence for evolution.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"How am I misusing the word??"

You are using it in a way that no scientist uses it. Words mean things, but not to you. You feel you can use any definition of a word that suits you. That's the height of intellectually dishonesty.

[Fester Chugabrew]

In case you didn't notice, as far as science is concerned the judge does not leave room for "faithful people who accept evolution."

[xzins]

Good article you linked to. To bad the judge decided early on to apply a religious test to ID.

His a priori assumption doomed this case from the beginning, apparently. I guess I'd hoped for too much in hoping for a balanced judge.

[SeeAllSides]

>>>The question is not relevant to the theory. Abiogenesis is the theory that deals with the origins of life. They are separate fields.<<<

>>>>Of course it's not, because the theory is disproven once you go back to the first living organism. It's hard to explain how the first living organism evolved from nothing.<<<<

This is where you keep getting tripped up - - the first living organism was formed (however that may have happened - which is NOT what we are discussing), THEN it started to evolve. The THEORY part comes in when trying to show what circumstances moved the evolution process along.

[toadthesecond]

As compared to a 2000+ year old unproven Theory?

[js1138]

Too bad the Discovery Institute left a masssive paper trail documenting their motives.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"It is important for aethiest/secular humanist that this philosophy of material naturalism is fostered upon children at a very young age."

It's methodological naturalism, and it is a necessity for ALL science. NO scientific theory deals with morals and values. Those are questions that are properly OUTSIDE of science.

[VadeRetro]

Made it placemarker. Back later for further celebratory revels.

[MeanWestTexan]

"Your [sic] wrong. Evolution, as it is instructed in public schools . . ."

I'm not here to defend the public schools. Something like half of Americans don't know the Earth orbits the Sun.

Indeed, the massive scientific ignorance of America is a huge part of this problem --- witness the numerous people on this very thread who think the Big Bang theory is part of Darwin's theory.

[saganite]

Yes