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.

[longshadow]

Man, someone sure forgot Law Rule #7. "Never Poss-off the Judge!"

Yup; lying under oath tends to have that effect....

;-)

[Road Warrior ‘04]

So, THOEORIES are fact? Or, are they speculative?

[Almondjoy]

The point your missing is that schools have a right to teach whatever they want. A judge should not be determining what a school can and cannot teach.

Or would you prefer a judge make the determination that a school can't teach about Pearl Harbor, or the rape of Nanking, or let's say the Holocaust.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Irrelevant, or else all of science would become invalid.

It is no more irrelevant to suggest intelligent design as the stock in trade of science than it is to suggest it takes tools to make tools. How the employment of intelligent design somehow "invalidates" science is a non-sequitur I've not been privy to of late.

[Thatcherite]

So, THOEORIES are fact? Or, are they speculative?

If you genuinely would like to understand then rather than cluttering up the thread with explanations that have been made again and again there is an informative link on this very subject on post #23 of this thread.

[js1138]

That's the judges term: testifying inconsistently, or lying repeatedly under oath.

[RedStateRocker]

With all due respect, I think you are lacking in the technical nomenclature of science.

A 'Theory' is a set of postulates that either predict outcomes or explain the facts. A 'theory' is never 'true' 'false' it is either valid (had predictive and or explanatory value) or not. The very concept of 'theory' is based on the belief that it will be further refined as more information becomes available this does not negate its value in the present; for example classical (Newtonian) physics was a perfectly valid theory that described actions and predicted results until the increase in the accuracy of measurements indicated something was amiss, leading to a new and better theory, that of relativity.

A hypothesis (foundation from ancient Greek hupothesis where hupo = under and thesis = placing) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.

The word 'theory' does *NOT* mean a 'guess', nor does the word 'hypothesis.

[Dimensio]

So, THOEORIES are fact? Or, are they speculative?

Theories are general explanation to describe how observed phenonemon occur. They are not a single data point, so they can't be summed up as "fact", but they are founded upon consistent observation, testing and failure of falisification, so they are decidedly more than speculation.

Now, a hypothetical falsification criteria for "Intelligent Design THEORY"?

[Thalos]

Genesis 2 does spell out something very specific, though. Read the section I quoted once again. Humans were created before any plants were created. If you claim that it can be interpreted instead of accepted as literal truth, than I can claim the same of Genesis I. My suggest is interpret them both so that God created a universe in which evolution occurs. Not only will it free you to understand the scientific evidence and the theories it supports, but there will never be any scientific theory that can oppose your religious beliefs.

If you postulate an all-powerful God who creates evidence that the world is billions of years old, then regardless of how old it actually is, the only way you can hope to make scientific progress is by studying the earth as if it were billions of years old.

[Quark2005]

I fail to see the relation, and needless to say, I believe such a usage to be insulting.

I certainly don't blame creationism for the Crucifixion. That would be ridiculous. I am simply pointing out by analogy how ridiculous and irrelevant it is to blame the most destructive ideologies and events in human history on either side of the argument.

[Canard]

"So, THOEORIES are fact? Or, are they speculative?"

Who said that theories were fact? Certainly not the post you're replying to.

Have you really made five posts in this thread without the slightest basic grasp of what a scientific theory actually is?

[benjibrowder]

The discovery of Troy does not prove that Zeus exists. Mythology has served its uses. Just as its likely that Soddom and Gomorrah are under the Dead Sea (which I believe contains how much salt):until winter of 1978-79: 300-400 thousand parts per thousand. The complete salinity is around 31.5% salt. It also discharges pieces of asphalt the size of houses after earthquakes. Hmm.

[Baraonda]

"The evolution from an aquatic species, to an amphibian species, to a land/reptilian species? Am I missing something here?"

Are you missing something? Yes, you are. No one has ever observed speciation.

[Wormwood]

Have you really made five posts in this thread without the slightest basic grasp of what a scientific theory actually is?

Welcome to the Internet!

[RunningWolf]

It is part of the gambit

Wolf

[narby]

I just don't like seeing judges make stupid laws into constitutional issues.

The judge in this case was assigned randomly. He didn't bring the lawsuit, all he did was judge it according to the existing precedents.

I disagree with those precedents, but that's another story entirely.

[The Lumster]

Because legally, the argument is rubbish

I understand that legally that argument is rubbish. It is rubbish because legal "scholars" long ago discarded the plain meaning of the document. It now means whatever the ruling authority wants it to mean at any given time. That does not however disincline me from making the argument from the plain text

So like I said, why should we have local elections at all. We might as well complete the transformation from constitutional republic to elected tyrants and quite fooling ourselves

[Almondjoy]

Actually you are wrong. Darwin only supposed that the mutations were random. However you found that only mutations that gave someone a chance of living would be passed on... hense "good genes". The premise of evolution and God can exist. Hense intellgent design. It brings the two together. For the person that believes in God this makes perfect sense. However intellgent design isn't science. It's an extention of religion into science.

Darwinism is not incompatible with religion. I really don't like putting intellgent design into the classroom however it should be put out there in discussion if a teacher or classmate decides like you have that Darwinism means there is no God.

[aNYCguy]

The point your missing is that schools have a right to teach whatever they want. A judge should not be determining what a school can and cannot teach.

Interesting idea, but you're going to run into trouble with that whole constitution thing. Establishing relgion and all that?

[Dimensio]

No one has ever observed speciation.

I could have sworn that you've already been directed to information that proves you wrong. Are you lying again? That does seem to be a safe assumption with you.