Reason and good sense triumph.
Agreed. And the Republican Party avoids the spectre of being associated with a second version of the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
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.
I see, so schools should not be places of legitimate inquiry on important subjects? Only some theories should be mentioned?
BTW, the government schools in my area do not have Sunday classes nor a pulpit.
"Has been observed."
Tell me when. Tell me when an more complex, totally different species has arrived on the scene without intelligent intervention. If you can answer that, you'll have provided something that even the most frevent evolutionary scientist has been unable to provide.
"Ah, now your showing your true colors. :)"
As are you with your vague assertions that things have been proven when no evidence is actually forthcoming.
Evolution - the stuff that dreams are made out of.
Speciation has been observed, both in the wild and in the laboratory.
Praise the Lord!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Exactly my point.
Bah, an elephant with no tusks is still an elephant.
If you shoot all the ones that spend most of their time on dry land, instead of in shallow water, they'll still be elephants.
Then if you shoot all the ones with long trunks, so the only ones that grow up have a short snout instead of a trunk, it will still be an elephant.
Then if you shoot all the tall ones, they'll still be elephants.
Then if you shoot all the ones with small heads, so that only ones with big flat heads are left, they'll still be elephants, even if they look and act like hippos by this point.
Faithful people believe that God has a hand in everything. Why do you insist that science books must explicitly say that, when it's irrelevant to the subject of science? It's irrelevant, even for a faithful person, because they already believe, and it's distracting for those who don't, or who believe in a different "God".
What you say you want, I don't think you would like if you got it.
This judge was appointed by George W. Bush.
Greek, Roman and Norse mythology also use real historical events and places. It allows the stories to resonate more with the people to whom the stories are directed.
"May I ask what it came from and how this thing came into existence?"
Sure. You can ask. Lots of people ask that question. There's no scientific answer at this time for that question. It's still being asked.
Here is a link to a good paper expalining how micro evolution can and inevitably DOES lead to macro evolution.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/adap-org/pdf/9903/9903001.pdf
Actually, those are no longer theories.
Important to remember what "scientific theory" really means....
I'm open to enlightenment.
BTW, I never have referred to "scientific theory". I'm still waiting for the definition, it must have stumped the poster who brought it up. You can certainly take a stab at it if you choose.
The selectivity with which you respond to points is as boring as your ad hominem argumentation and feeble attempts at sarcasm. I think I'll move on to an intellectually honest opponent with a better understanding of the philisophy of science.
[Another judge (an agent of the government) making an official government proclamation about what is and isn't religion.]
[[Well, duh -- that is a necessary judicial function. For example, if some clown in the federal pen declares that he just converted to a religion that requires him to dine on sirloin steak and pistachio ice cream every day and sues to be provided with those delicacies, then the judge is going to have to rule on whether or not this is a genuine religion or an excuse to pester the prison authorities. The same principle applies here.]]
This is an excellent observation, and I think it accurately describes this ruling.
Irrespective, my point stands. No huffing or puffing about it. Just fact. A theory is, by definition, unproven. No amount of rationalization will change that until the proof is in.
True, but what your point fails to address is that theories are never proven. The fact that the Theory of Gravity or Germ Theory haven't been proven doesn't say anything about them, and the fact that the Theory of Evolution hasn't been proven doesn't say anything about it, either.
Theories still require evidence. They require support and research and review. On all those counts, ID fails the test and is has not earned the name.
Reason and good sense triumph.
Agreed. And the Republican Party avoids the spectre of being associated with a second version of the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Feel free to take a stab at it.
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.