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.

[gdani]

I think recent photos of Russian boxer Nikolay Valuev are proof of common descent.......

[cogitator]

Or, could you direct me to a source that describes these things? Thanks in advance.

Read "The Beak of the Finch" by Jonathan Weiner, for starters.

[Jeff Head]

The Constitution doesn't say anything about public schools, or the separatioon of Church and State either.

[Physicist]

Since the local voters rejected the school board what possible reason do you have to applaud this federal inquisition.

Because a syndicate has mobilized to peddle this shamanism in schools all over the country.

Science that does not rely solely on it's persuasiveness is not science at all.

True, but scientists are the only relevant audience for that persuasion.

It's doctrine to be protected from "denigration" by courts. Beside ignoring the possible effect of this ruling on the evolution of scientific debate in this country, you ignore it's certain effect on the evolution of our law.

It will not affect scientific debate one jot or tittle, since that has never been conducted in public schools. The debate regarding evolution is long, long over. The only matter remaining is to teach the result of that debate to the public.

As for its effect on the law, that was settled over 200 years ago. Schools are not churches, end of story.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Materialistic Naturalism asserts that matter is the only reality, and that all the laws of the universe are reducible to mechanical laws."

The position of science is called methodological naturalism.

[Protagoras]

Just pondering aloud...

[Jeff Head]

Uh...if it's a theory, it is, by definition, not proven.

[facedown]

bttt

[highball]

"This is a political forum, so words do not have to conform to "scientific standards"..."

Funny, that's just what the school board said about science classes and ID.

That's a shocking admission. Thank you for your honesty.

It's a sad state of affairs when someone who calls himself a conservative actually admits that he wants political considerations to take precedence over accuracy in science. That's why I've been saying that ID is nothing more than warmed-over PC - trying to make science conform to a political agenda, regardless of the scientific merits of the agenda.

[narby]

You don't have a clue as to what ID really is, do you?

What ID pretends to be, and what it actually is, are two entirely different things. The testimony of the trial, when "Christians" got on the stand and lied under oath about what they had said in their School Board meetings, demonstrated all I need to know about ID and it's proponents.

[plewis1250]

90% of the country identifies themselves as "Christians", of some sort. They have been spoon fed your theories all of their lives, so you are right, they do not all believe in creationism. Unlike you however, they do not believe we all came from pond scum. They believe in a god, which means they must believe something besides the pond scum theory. (That theory is based on a total LACK of a god of any sort)
- plewis1250

[Protagoras]

None of this would matter if government schools were abolished, as they should be.

[Fester Chugabrew]

But when it comes to this particular dogma, many are happy to adopt it for themselves.

Isn't it just a tad "dogmatic" to assert that God is not, and cannot be, the object or subject of science?

[js1138]

I seem to have responded to you on the wrong thread. It would be easier to discuss this on the thread rather than on freepmail. At first I had no idea what you were referring to.

My question remains. How does this case get to the Supreme Court?

[js1138]

Isn't it just a tad "dogmatic" to assert that God is not, and cannot be, the object or subject of science?

No.

[plewis1250]

*sigh*

[Diamond]

There is no way to know if God exists.

The claim of certain ignorance entails a claim of omniscience, which is self-refuting.

Cordially,

[Jeff Head]

Because evolution is the only scientificly proven "theory" about the existence ofthe universe.

Incorrect. A theory, by definition, is not proven.

[plewis1250]

Here here!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"90% of the country identifies themselves as "Christians", of some sort."

So? Most evolutionists believe in God.

"Unlike you however, they do not believe we all came from pond scum. They believe in a god, which means they must believe something besides the pond scum theory. (That theory is based on a total LACK of a god of any sort)."

The majority of people who agree with evolution don't agree with you. They also believe in God.

BTW, abiogenesis theory says NOTHING about the existence of a deity, for or against. Nor do any other theories in science. :)