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.

[Dimensio]

LOL, thats the disclaimer from Dover.

The one that falsely claims that evolution concerns itself with the origin of life?

[jwalsh07]

Wiat until you read the 11th Circuits holding. Make sure you tie your head together in three planes before you do.

[Torie]

That does sound close to Georgia, but the sentence "Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view," makes it tougher, because it suggests that evolution was pre-coded by God, and there is no scientific evidence for that at all. That is not a theory, but a religious leap of faith. What does the word "explanation" mean? It is not a scientific one, but a religious one, which would not be mentioned absent a religious leap of faith, since as I said the explanation has no scientific evidence supporting it.

And then there is the origin of life bit. Does that mean non life flipping to life, or the evolution of life? If it is the flip, it is fair to say nobody knows, but to suggest ID has a theory about it, can only mean a religious theory. If it refers only to evolution, see above.

Torie rules like the judge did. But it is a tentative ruling.

[narby]

The theory is not a fact.

Nearly 1600 posts, and you still don't understand what a theory is... Sad.

[Coyoteman]

Recognize these terms (from a google search)? I've posted them often enough on these threads, and Junior has them on the bottom of his oft-posted crevo thread compendium:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)

Observation: any information collected with the senses

Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith

Faith the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"

Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.

[Jo Nuvark]

[...why I only posted half the Darwin quote...]

I am not convinced that TF's are certifiable.
I believe what are being called TF's are independant
species that were the same when they were created
as when they became extinct.

Because a scientist says it is a TF does not make it a
fact. Proof is missing and that is not science.

[lonestar67]

I have followed this for some time and disagree with your sense of it.

I think some in the evolution community are definitely over reaction. The discussion is conducted as if it is 1925. It clearly is not. This is not Scopes. This is a question of whether ID will even be heard in science classrooms not the censorship of evolution. In my extensive review of this debate, it is the evolutionists who take the Oscar. They suggest that science is about to end.

And yes, in this thread you will find over dramatic reactions to my questions in comments. Evolution could be wrong-- even though I do believe as I stated earlier that the evidence is much stronger for evolution than any other rival theory.

[Coyoteman]

Why do ID scientists have to be treated like such dunces? Is that really part of the "scientific method"?

Perhaps its a reflection on the quality of their "science."

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Why do you say,

"I have to say my faith in evolution is declining with the noxious treatment of ID proponents."

When your posting record shows you clearly in the ID camp?

"The underpinnings of intelligent design are science.

Scientist have observed order and concluded that it is not chaos and not properly explained by randomness. This is the predominate view throughout all of science-- when one observes order we presume design or intention.

It is only in the radical Darwinian community is there an adamant faithful insistence upon order must be caused by randomness."

Posted by lonestar67 to Wolfstar
On Smoky Backroom 11/11/2005 8:26:16 PM EST · 68 of 414

[xzins]

I don't think that evolution "necessarily" rescinds the idea of God.

You said, though, that you couldn't rationalize the contradiction, so you rejected the bible.

How can a Catholic reject the bible that the Catholic Church declares is the inspired Word of God?

[whattajoke]

I have many scientists in my family, even a Harvard graduate, and we are creationists with a capital C.

Tricky punctuation, caffe. So, one can assume the "Harvard graduate" isn't necessarily a scientist. And if he/she is, how do I put this politely... SO WHAT?

[Ichneumon]

Notice you now thoughfully refute my evidence on primates.

Earlier though, I was "in a parallel universe," because you dismissed out of hand the possibility of its existence.

Ahem -- do not be disingenuous. He did not suggest that *you* were "in a parallel universe" (actually he said "alternate", but no matter), he suggested that your alleged evidence must be from an alternate universe, for the very good reason that no evidence OF THE KIND YOU DESCRIBED is known. So if you had some, it must have been beamed in from some reality other than the current one.

And note that he wasn't taking issue with your claim that "considerable genetic differentiation between humans and other primates have been found". That would be an unamazing finding. However, you didn't stop there. You claimed that, "It has been found to such an extent that the smooth evolution theories have been problematized."

*THAT* is the claim which richly earned you an, "oh yeah?" attitude in response, because a) if such a finding had actually been found, it would already be very big news, impossible to miss by anyone who follows science news, and b) those of us who have been following the chimp/human genome projects *know* that the detailed analysis of the genetic differences between the species has not turned up any findings of the sort you describe.

So in short, we knew that you were making a claim you couldn't support, or vastly exaggerating something you did have.

Thus, the response you got. EVEN SO, you'll note that he was openminded enough to ask to see what you had anyway.

So again, you might want to drop the drama queen stuff, like when you use this minor example of eye-rolling as if it's some kind of keelhauling, and justifies comments of yours like:

This is how evolution proponents argue. It is wrong. And it does more to discredit evolution than any gap in the so called record.

Uh huh. Sure. You get treated with humorous skepticism for making an overblown claim we know is false, and suddenly it "discredits evolution" and is "wrong" and is "how evolution proponents argue".

Sheesh.

[eleni121]

The old fogey writes this:

"...yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow from the advance of science." What a sneaky conniver! Get it?

[RunningWolf]

the fact remains that the genetic difference between man and chimp is only ten times larger than the average genetic difference between two humans...

But what does that mean infer or conclude?? It could mean what you think, or it could not mean that.

More later.

Also some of those fossil photos in your postings, I have looked at them and you might be interested in my concerns or not.

Wolf

[Recovering_Democrat]

Obviously, it wasn't [about Dover and nowhere else]. This wasn't about teaching both sides in a local dispute about who owned that old house down the street and whether or not it should be preserved as an historic monument. IMO, how scientific theories are taught in government funded schools is not only a local issue, but an issue that involves the interests of the nation as a whole.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I'd like to see the documentation that shows the case involved anyplace outside of Dover.

I still say a federal judge should not be dictating to local school boards any curriculum. The Congress is involved in a limited degree when it comes to funding issues for states (the "No Child Left Behind" law), but some judge sitting and passing judgement on decisions made by people voted in by the parents of the kids is not desirable.

If people don't like the school board, vote 'em out, and make sure the school board has the kind of schools they desire. This isn't a place for a federal judge.

[truthchaser]

Evolution aside, I still don't understand why it wouldn't be appropriate in a high school science class to discuss the cosmological arguments and the many many fantastically improbable and coincidental constants, ratios, and conditions necessary for the universe and life as we know it. Isn't that science? Certainly the couple books I've read on the subject I found in the science section. The kids can draw their own conclusions.

[Dimensio]

"...yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow from the advance of science."

So what do you think that Darwin is trying to say here? Or are you just throwing out anything that you can find and hoping that something will be damning?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

So, no explanation still why you only posted half the Darwin quote to make it look like Darwin had no answer to the problems of the fossil record? Curious.

"I am not convinced that TF's are certifiable.I believe what are being called TF's are independant
species that were the same when they were created
as when they became extinct. "

Nobody is saying that transitional fossils are not separate species. The idea of catching species in mid-speciation is unrealistic, considering how terribly rare it is for an organism to be fossilized. Not only do well over 99% of all organisms not get fossilized, most species have not been fossilized. The fossil record is not proof that evolution happened, but it is strong evidence. Combined with other types of evidence (morphological, behavioral, genetic) the theory is compelling to all who are willing to entertain the idea of non-fixed species.

[lonestar67]

My postings clearly show me in the ID camp because I think they should be heard.

That is an excellent indication of how open minded the evolution proponents on this thread are. Let's be clear, not all proponents of evolution-- including myself-- are so dogmatic.

As I noted in the alchemy example, scientists can make bad assumptions and still practice science.

This kind of bogus intolerance is hurting science not helping it.

"The radical darwinian community" is not every proponent of evolution. There is a unique group of individuals who see evolution as an intellectual sledgehammer. I am trying to figure out the motives as to why.

[Recovering_Democrat]

As it happens, yes. Absolutely and resoundingly. Still, the old board's actions were unconstitutional and the court still needed to rule.

I can't agree. Federal judges have no business dictating to local school boards a curriculum. The voters hold school boards accountable, it is not the realm for the federal judiciary.