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.

[xzins]

If you want to head toward the mountains, buy now.

The price of mountain land just keeps going up.

[NapkinUser]

I guess I'm wrong. Watching NBC Nightly news (I don't have cable anymore, don't ask) I saw one of the women who sued the school board. She is a religious woman who goes to church and strongly believes in God. So I guess my assumption that only atheists liked this decision was way off.

Come to think of it, didn't the Vatican endorse evolution and called ID "flawed"?

[Ceewrighter]

A fossil record does exist, but it has wide gaps. After you explain your faith in Darwin's theory explain why evolutionists thought that amphibians descended from coelacanth, which was known only from fossils. That was until 1938 when living coelacanths were discovered. This showed that their DNA has remained stable throughout time. I'd like to know that happened.

[js1138]

We don't misspeak any more. We testify inconsistently.

[VadeRetro]

Rain check accepted. This thing's like an old bomb that could blow any second.

[js1138]

Old (4.5 years) machine, dusty computer room. (Who dusts?)

?My daughter's computer got plugged up with dust (dryer lint, I suspect) and caught on fire.

[Dimensio]

After you explain your faith in Darwin's theory explain why evolutionists thought that amphibians descended from coelacanth, which was known only from fossils. That was until 1938 when living coelacanths were discovered. This showed that their DNA has remained stable throughout time. I'd like to know that happened.

Why would the emergence of amphibians from coelacanth mean that living coelacanth could never be observed?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"A fossil record does exist, but it has wide gaps."

In some places; in others there are smooth transitions. It will always be hit or miss because the vast majority of organisms never get fossilized, and those that do are mostly from organisms that lived near water.

"After you explain your faith in Darwin's theory explain why evolutionists thought that amphibians descended from coelacanth, which was known only from fossils. That was until 1938 when living coelacanths were discovered. This showed that their DNA has remained stable throughout time. I'd like to know that happened."

1) Actually, the coelacanths of today are not the same as they were millions of years ago, any more than sharks are the same as they were millions of years ago. None of today's species were around 100 million years ago. The stability of the basic body plan of some organisms is a reflection of their generalized natures.

2) When a population speciates, it does NOT mean that the entire species changes into a new one. It's only a population of that species. You can have a parent species have 3 or 4 daughter species, with the parent species living at the same time as the daughter species.

[jbloedow]

The red herring was your bringing up how many people believed a certain theory. It has nothing to do with the veracity of evolution., etc., etc., blah...

That's odd: I'm frequently told that the great numbers of scientists who believe in evolution is some great important testament to its veracity. Hmm... nevermind, my mistake.

Anyway, as I said, the analogy does not in and of itself prove anything as some sort of logical argument, and that's not how it was presented. You can either view a mass belief system from the point of view of the people believing it, and analyze the evidence for and against, or you can step back and view it from a sort of mass psychological or sociological point of view.

Many people look at "religionists" using the latter lens. Similarly, you look at the historical obsession with Marxism and Freudianism either way: on the one hand you can ask yourself, what was the enormous evidence that led so many highly educated, intelligent, rational people to believe so fervently and dogmatically in such a pile of horse-cr@p? On the other hand, you can ask what sociological/psychological factors were in play that brought this about?

You see, I don't believe it was some massive weight of evidence that led all these people to believe in Marxism and Freudianism. I believe it was more presuppositional than evidential. Of course, the adherents would plead to the contrary until they were blue in the face. As have you.

And given the enormous historical crossover between belief in Marxism, Freudianism, and Darwinism, it behoves the curious traveler to ponder, if only fleetingly, if perhaps the latter belief system will follow the same trajectory as the former two.

[NapkinUser]

See my post 1,402.

[Dimensio]

Your just as biased towards your beliefs as we are to our own, so STFU.

The claim that Darwin rejected evolution before he died is not a belief, it is a lie.

[Lurking Libertarian]

That was until 1938 when living coelacanths were discovered. This showed that their DNA has remained stable throughout time.

Hardly. The modern coelocanths were no longer the same species as the fossil coelocanths-- not even the same genus. Their DNA had changed substantially. (See more here.)

[andysandmikesmom]

Thanks both to PH and LL for the link to the debunking of the 'Darwin recant' story....that is what I was looking for..

Of course, I knew all along that this story had been debunked, just wanted to read about it again..

And of course PH, you are right, even if Darwin had recanted in some sort of mental collapse, or fever, or whatever, I agree, the evolutionary theory is fine...

Conservative Blonde...I hold out little hope for verification of your story...tho I will check it out tomorrow, I am sure, your story has in reality, been credibly debunked...

First the debunking of the Marx/Stalin/Darwin connection..

Now, the debunking of the 'Darwin recant' story...

Next....

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"That's odd: I'm frequently told that the great numbers of scientists who believe in evolution is some great important testament to its veracity."

Not on this thread.

"Hmm... nevermind, my mistake."

Yep.

"And given the enormous historical crossover between belief in Marxism, Freudianism, and Darwinism, it behoves the curious traveler to ponder, if only fleetingly, if perhaps the latter belief system will follow the same trajectory as the former two."

Again, your analogy falls to pieces. It's just wishful thinking on your part.

"It has nothing to do with the veracity of evolution., etc., etc., blah..."

If you are going to quote me, next time don't make things up. Otherwise I will think you are a liar.

[beaver fever]

"Many thanks to all of you.."

You can pass on my thanks also

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"so STFU"

This should be the epitaph for creationism.

[benjibrowder]

The Establishment Clause says that the Federal Government can make no law establishing any official religion. Incorporation protects the citizens rights from the state government. This does not establish Separation of Church and State. Something similar would not come until Everson v. Board of Education.

[js1138]

Lotta inconsistent testifying goin' on out der.

[Ceewrighter]

"There are known inconsistencies between relativity and quantum mechanics. Shall we throw them out and just decide that God makes everything move?"

Of course not, nowhere in my post did I allude to that. But as inconsistencies do exist in many theories, those deviations are readily cited, whereas in high school science curriculum the gaps in Darwin's theory are never mentioned.

Do you think the gaps should be made mention of. And if you do, why wouldn't you suggest other theories.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You can write whatever you want about me . . .

I reckon I could. For now it only matters what you yourself wrote, namely that science is to be strictly about proofs.

. . . but it still doesn't prove your claims about ID are true.

It would be better if you did not infer from my own writings that I claim intelligent design to be scientifically provable. As it is, it seems you would like to fabricate whatever you want about me. That's okay. It'll all come out in the wash.

From the above, it's obvious why the Dover lost.

The only thing obvious is that the notion intelligent design irks evolutionists enough that they want to make a federal case of it.