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.
The issue is salience, not sanity. Many sane parents are grossly ignorant, and many sane students defer to the authority of teachers when they undermine religion and implicitly advocate liberation from traditional values. Making the lack of school and teacher authority in faith and morals abundantly clear would give parents and students a firmer everyday basis for contesting teachers and school administrators who stray.
Well, if you don't understand how the ancient Edison invention of moving pictures record reality, then I'm sure the lurkers will.
Explaining God, is like having to point out the Sun.
He IS and always will be! A ruling by an arrogant
judge cannot change the fact that God IS! The Great
I AM will not be mocked!
If you can define "natural" without indulging a circular argument please share it. Or is human understanding alone what differientiates the "natural" from anything else? Atheistic science, yes, always assumes God does not exist and has no place in the workings of the universe.
"Explaining God, is like having to point out the Sun.
He IS and always will be! A ruling by an arrogant
judge cannot change the fact that God IS! The Great
I AM will not be mocked!"
The Judge never said that God doesn't exist. Nor did he imply it.
Scientific fact,,,all people who disagree with evolutionists are ignoramuses.
The godless militants are charming, aren't they?
But at least they aren't zealots, right? (/sarc)
Now you're moving the goalposts. Here's your original statement:
"If we believe it is possible, then why do we try and prevent our students from learning such theories?"
Well, if the Nation of Islam think it's possible, why prevent students from learning it? Are you being discriminatory?
Or is it that you only want your own religious faith - and no others - taught as fact?
What's your point?
Evolution is amazing. I wonder who invented it?
Excellent. The judge makes a good point in his opinion:
"To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."
ID is by nature untestable, so it can never be taught as science.
Conservatives would do well to distance themselves from this crowd, as they're looking more and more like the tinfoil hat crowd every day.
Materialistic Naturalism asserts that matter is the only reality, and that all the laws of the universe are reducible to mechanical laws. It is a philisophical point of view. It asserts that we call the human person is but a transitory phase in the special arrangement of material elements giving rise to special mental results; and it goes without saying that in such a system there is no room for freedom, responsibility, or personal immortality. It is generally completely incompatible with religious belief systems and OUGHT NOT BE INSTRUCTED IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
God created hurricane Katrina to. Right?
But weathermen tell us that heat, and circulation, etc. "caused" Katrina. So where was God? Do you have a barometer to measure Him?
Many Christians, such as the entire Catholic Church, have no problem accepting that evolution is merely a tool God used, like He used the tools of heat and weather to "create" Katrina.
It's no big mystery. Evolution happened. If you believe in God, then He did it.
Well that certainly settles that...
;o)
"Evolution is amazing. I wonder who invented it?"
That's not a scientific question. :)
Evolution happens every time you take an antibiotic. It is an important tool of Biology, and attacking it was a stupid move for IDers to do. Simply because they were wrong. They've wasted their time, and wasted conservative political capital for no apparent good.
Good? If we're here only as a result of dumb luck then there really is no "good" in the first place, and the sentiment is self-refuting. There is only one's personal preference, which apparently a judge and you think should be imposed on every government school. Do you really think it is a good idea for a court to not only to decide for the whole country what is and is not religion, but what is and is not science, which philosphers of science cannot even determine? Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.
Cordially,
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.