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.
What? You don't have churches in your area? I would leave! As for schools being places of legitimate inquiry, sure they should. Christianity is discussed in philosophy classes and history classes. Religion is not a scientific theory and doesn't belong in science classes.
"The existence of matter is a Hindu belief?"
Sure. The Hindus believe in the existence of matter. Do you suppose they do not.
They also have creation theories. Three, actually. Which one would you like to discuss. Perhaps we should be teaching the Hindu creation stories in our science classes.
May Kali bless you, or at least not destroy you!
You have described no limitation to evolution with the word "genetics". Go back and describe what process limits evolution, other than time, and the number of generations.
Even though you can run through thousands of generations of fruit flies in a short time you still end up with fruit flies.
You end up with fruit flies that cannot interbreed, and are thus different "species". This is how evolution happens.
There is no "macro" vs. "micro" evolution. It is one scientific theory, with no limitations other than time.
I suspect that very few of those criticizing the decision have bothered to read -- or will ever read -- the opinion.
I predict a zotting in your near future -even the cloak of a 'crevo' thread can not mask your garbage.
You may be on the wrong Forum? What Free Republic is all about:
Statement by the founder of Free Republic
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.
We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.
Sheez. Don't you get it? It isn't just "God" the judge would declare unacceptable by law, but the very notion that intelligent design can explain the organization of matter that behaves according to predictable laws. And again, this judge has declared atheistic science, and atheistic science alone, to be taught in a public academic setting. That's something Marx would do.
The admitted intention of the school board (although they were caught trying to lie about this on the stand) was to promote their own version of Christianity. It is disingenuous to pretend that ID is somehow neutral or friendly to all faiths.
Nice try son. Ummm, never mind,,actually kinda weak.
"Because evolution is the only scientificly proven "theory" about the existence ofthe universe"
Scientifically proven theory??? That doesn't even make sense. Theories are "possibilities" not proven fact.
I'm already 80 posts behind in this thread and have no time to tutor today. Learn to use Google. I'm not responsible for your ignorance.
yeah the leftests win again - isnt it great when you get to agree with a bunch of loony leftests that life was created out of nothing. (/s/)
Correct. And neither do statements of definition such as "science does not address the existence or nonexistence of supernatural entities".
sting theory
I'm asking you which religion ID by definition is attempting to establish? Is it a particularly Jewish, Christian, or Muslim idea? Which religion does organized matter espouse?
I read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". Does that count?
Behe is very scientific when discussing flagellum or blood clotting or the eye, but that is in there to "prove" how complex the system is.
The conclusion reached from that discussion is philosophical in nature, in the never very humble opinion of this commentator with a degree in philosophy (yes, martha, we do exist). That one is a scientist does not lead necessarily to the conclusion that the position held by said scientist is, in fact, a scientific position.
Irreducible complexity is a philosophical position. That we infer design from irreducible complexity is another layer of that philosophical position.
JMO.
In other words you don't address the points that I have made, and resort to personal attacks, strawmans, and other logical fallacies.
"But what if an explaination is contrived in such a way that prevents it being even potentially disproven? For example the theory that lightning is caused by invisible and undetectable beings is contrived in such a way that it can't possibly be ever disproven."
Because we have scientifically proven how lightning is generated. We can reproduce it on a repeated basis. If we could reproduce the "evolution" of the human species in a lab, then there would be no reason to consider "intelligent design".
Until something is disproven or another theory is proven, you are only limiting yourself in the search for the truth. Socrates pushed the Dialectic method which advocated a debate, even with the absurd, in the search for veritas. To limit the bounds of an exploratory debate is to one's self a disservice. I don't see how the judges can call "Darwin's Theory" science. In its final analysis, it is no more proven than the Egyptians theory that the stars in the sky are a holes in a turtles shell.
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.