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.
Are you denying that ID accepts evolution as fact?
Are you denying that ID accepts a common ancestor?
Are you denying that on the stand Behe admitted that we should teach kids that God could be dead, since He hasn't done anything in a long time?
What part of that were you "Umkay"ing?
"I do know a bit about evolution, mostly from the fossil man side, but I hever heard that increasing complexity was required by the theory. What is your source for this?"
Kent Hovind, aka "Dr. Dino," who knows about as much about the theory of evolution as he does about the Internal Revenue Code. :)
Alright, Hubble said the radiation was left over from the explosion because the particles looked anisotrophic. Anisotrophic in what way? What's anisotrophic, the background microwaves?
But it does not say how we were created, except from the "dust of the earth". Which is poetic language that can mean anything.
In any event, literal interpretations of Genesis are a non-starter, since the earth is quite obviously older than 6000 years. Once you throw out literalness, then anything goes in the Bible, including evolution of man.
[going further out on the legal limb]: While it is true they lied their asses off in court under oath, the trouble is you'd need evidence they lied during their deliberations on the ID policy as School Board memebers to make that argument. IOW, I don't know that showing they lied in court, post hoc, can be used to conclude bad-faith in their deliberations....
OTOH, if evidence is available to show that NOT only were they engaging in bad faith on the witness stand, BUT ALSO during their deliberation of the ID policy, you might well be on to something....
;-)
Then I guess the theory of relativity or the big bang theory doesn't belong either.
""If you cannot read that, than you're an idiot?""
"Just don't ask the theory to make any predictions in this regard, because the subject will immediately turn to weather."
Actually, I believe it will turn to how stupid I am and how little I understand the theory of evolution.
Part of the problem here is that evolution's proponents don't seem to understand what they are arguing for.
On the other hand, if evolution really is abandoning the notion that simple life forms can take on added complexity by themselves through only random and environmental changes, that is a huge victory for evolution's critics. It means that evolution is now becoming so glaringly stupid that even the most simple minded will be able to see it as the sham that it is. ("See, our theory is that life on this planet began very simply. For lack of a better term, as primordial soup in which lived single, one celled animals. Where they came from, don't ask us. We tried to deal with that a long time ago, but our critics were too tough, so we created another branch of science to deal with that. They're on their own. Now, this primordial soup ended up evolving and spawning, through environmental changes the rich, diverse biosphere which we have today. This includes evolution's crowning achievement, man. However, it should be noted that evolution does not require the addition of any complexity into these animals. As anyone by the most stupidest religious fanatic can tell you, human beings are on the same order of complexity as primordial soup.")
Nah, I think we're just dealing with people who really don't understand what they're arguing in favor of.
Corrected text:
According to one particular methodology of Biblical interpretation, the Bible is not compatable with evolution. According to this manner of interpretation,it says there was no death prior to the fall, hence there could be no natural selection or evolution to produce mankind.
Sounds like a confused 2nd Thermo law argument to me.
"What is your source for this?"
I'm pretty sure the source is one of those creationist web sites. They get the TOE wrong all the time. Pity.
Am I being dishonest in asserting the judge espouses wholly atheistic science and expects the same to be the only science allowed in public schools?
I must assume you are a child... What I have is over a century of history, and a lifetime of learning. Do you want me to provide evidence that the sky is blue? Or that grass is green? Or that the American media is liberal? Or that things fall down when you let them go?
Encouraging you to educate on a topic area with which I am eminently familiar, and with which you have no familiarity at all, is intellectually dishonest in the same way that a professor is intellectually dishonest when he tells you to do your homework before giving you an A in his class.
You want evidence that virtually every economics department in this US, Canada, Britain, eastern and western Europe was dominated by Marxists for most of the 20th century? How long do you think that post would be? Books and books have been written on the subject. You are obviously very young or very liberal if you're not aware of this.
Nevertheless, this is precisely the caliber of reasoning I have come to expect from Marxists/Freudians/Darwinists.
LOL
Big Bang is a joke. Who was around to cause it?
What the ???? You shouldn't be so blunt about it.
"Alright, Hubble said the radiation was left over from the explosion because the particles looked anisotrophic."
He didn't say that; he didn't even know about the anisotropic nature of the cosmic microwave background. (Kindly not that microwaves are not particles. If you don't even understand that much about the subject, kindly quit spouting off.) If I recall correctly, the discovery of the microwave background didn't even happen until after WW2, when radio astronomy really got going (due in part to there being a bunch of war-surplus air defense radars available for use). Later work on the Big Bang theory determined that there would be anisotropy, which was confirmed--in both presence and degree--by the COBE probe in 1991-92.
"I do know a bit about evolution, mostly from the fossil man side, but I hever heard that increasing complexity was required by the theory. What is your source for this?"
My source is the theory of evolution. Where do you think the added complexity came from? God?
Do you deny that the theory of evolution has to account for added complexity? That a class of animal must be able to evolve to a more complex class of animal via nothing more than changes in environment and random changes?
"Where did all the stuff that we see come from unless from an intelligent designer who created the very stuff with which to design?"
ID doesn't attempt to explain the origin of matter. You are making the mistake of thinking that ID includes everything that Gensis does.
"Don't quite understand your analogy. Are you saying that the configuration involves a designer but that designer is not divine? Please explain."
I'm saying that a highly complex system is more likely to exist because of deliberate action by an intelligent being than by chance. Complexity implies a creator, but it doesn't have to be a divine being. I could place dice like that if I wanted to (and if I knew your name).
ID takes as a hypothesis that there is a designer, but it doesn't require the designer to be divine, or to have created matter from nothing, or to have done it as outlined by the teachings of any religion.
You're over one hundred years old? Don't people get senile after ninety? No offense.
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.