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.
I said nothing immodest, just that you weren't smart enough to lecture me. I'm just an average blue collar guy.
No, you will. I'll be patient.
Patience is a virtue born of the evolutionary phsychologists "reciprocal altruism". It's in your genes so you get no points, you can be nothing but.
FR doesn't post bloggers.
So a school can no longer teach about religion? Are you mad? Many schools all over the country teach about Islam has a matter of tolerence.. so now you are going to tell them they can't teach ID as a matter of opinion?
You might want to actually read our constitution instead of trying to write a new one.
Narby... why so rasty? This has been an awesome
discussion, but you seem to be angry. Whassup?
If anything, those who want only what they believe in taught in school won this round, but I wouldn't call you Taliban. At least not until you start maiming and killing the rest of us who simply want to discuss and debate all of the possibilities that are based on science.
Since you haven't stooped that far so far as I know, you won't receive the return fire that goof did.
It's return fire, keep that in mind. Merely a demonstration of the mirror tactic. Sailed right past some I see.
narby Post 1632: No, you will [mention it again].
jwalsh07 Post 1641: I said nothing immodest, just that you weren't smart enough to lecture me.
Well now, that didn't take long.
>FR doesn't post bloggers.
awwww, I suppose its better to post only lame recycled MSM crap. Imagine if FR ignored certain bloggers when see-BS was selling forged documents as authentic.
And they are heard.
As I noted in the alchemy example, scientists can make bad assumptions and still practice science.
Correct. But bad "science" (in the case of ID, pseudoscience), still deserves to be called what it is.
This kind of bogus intolerance is hurting science not helping it.
It's not a "bogus intolerance". It's an intolerance for bogusness. If ID was merely wrong, it wouldn't get the abuse it does. The reason it gets ragged on is because it's masquerading as something it's not, it pretends more than it delivers. We don't accept that in silence from Michael Moore, and we shouldn't put up with it from "ID" proponents either.
"The radical darwinian community" is not every proponent of evolution.
I'm not sure it's any of them. What exactly is a "radical darwinian"?
There is a unique group of individuals who see evolution as an intellectual sledgehammer.
Like who?
I am trying to figure out the motives as to why.
You should also try to figure out if you're misunderstanding the people you think are "sledgehammering" or "radical darwinians".
LOL, you're a self fulfilling prophecy. Fulfill on!
I thought it was obvious I was being catty. Sadly, it wasn't obvious because arguments as ridiculous as the one I presented are often put forth as serious arguments.
Many items in nature are chemically similar to one another, but that doesn't make them similar in appearance or effect.
Genome similarity goes far beyond "chemically similar"...
It's not the molecules that a substance is made of that defines it, but rather how those molecules are arranged.
...and the above statement is *about* how "those molecules are arranged" in the genome (and the resulting phenotype).
No, it is not circular reasoning. First off, if you know a rock is 100M years old, then it is reasonable to infer anything found stuck in that rock is 100M years old, so I don't see what your problem is. If you want to claim that we prove fossils are 100M years old because they are in rocks which are 100M years old, and we know the rocks are 100M years old because they have fossils which are 100M years old stuck in them, that's not how it works. Are you going to reply to this post or are you just going to ignore it?
I maintain that evolution is a theory. I recognize that the same can be said of so called intelligent design.
I have never advocated teaching ID in government schools. In fact, I have advocated abolishing government schools. Further, I oppose any attempt to have government employees teach religion in government schools. It would be folly for both the teacher, who would most certainly be incompetent, and the pupils who would be hopelessly mislead by such "teachers".
Further, I have not said evolution is incorrect. I think the theory has some merit.
I have further said that I see no reason that both cannot be correct. I have never said ID should be taught in any particular class, much less "science" class. (where, unfortunately, much nonsense is taught as fact)
I merely maintain that in any school worthy of being called a school, serious questions are suitable material for further inquiry. The advocation of one theory on a given subject, while not even acknowledging a different theory is clearly not designed to further intelligent inquiry. It is, rather, the precise thing that ID advocates are being accused of in this case. Namely, pushing an agenda.
So you see, no matter how much you folks jump to incorrect conclusions about me or the subject matter, I have not even attempted to have it both ways. It is merely a construct of your imagination.
Carry on.
Did you somehow miss the fact that you were the one who fulfilled my prediction? I didn't fulfill anything.
I think you are mistaken.
I posted a link of scientific evidence differentiating primates and humans. No one debunked it.
The article itself needs no debunking. Your conclusions about it are a different matter, and I myself *have* addressed those already.
The link is still out there in this thread with excerpts from the article. So have a look into the "alternate universe." Get back to me once you have.
Um... Been there and done that already. Try to keep up.
What you're overlooking is the fact that nothing in the article you posted substantiates your claim about it:
I understand that considerable genetic differentiation between humans and other primates have been found. It has been found to such an extent that the smooth evolution theories have been problematized.Absolutely nothing in the article you posted supports (or even mentions anything about) the claim you made which I have marked in boldface.
Moreover, I sustained the point that the desire to see humans and apes as similar obstructs scientific views of the differences.
And you are incorrect in that presumption. Both the differences and the similarities are being vigorously investigated.
The entire humiliation theme indicated toward ID scientists is ridiculous.
When "ID scientists" make bogus claims and overblown pronouncements that are unsupported by the facts, they humiliate themselves. We just point it out.
No cigar. Close is a similarity not an ancestor.
For at least 8,000 years dogs have been giving
birth to dogs and apes have been giving birth to apes.
Observable and repeatable.
aeronautical engineering and physics - do a search - but then again, I could just be aware of the guy's existence and am making false claims
Just try and use some brains - one does not need to be a believer in darwin to be a great scientist and one can be a believer in biblical creation and be a great scientist. Understanding physics, biochemistry, neurology and even psychiatry does not require faith in Darwin.
They have no right or wrong either. Just like the Godless atheists. So you are correct, there is no meaningful difference between an atheist and a chimpanzee.
Go visit the zoo.
The equals of man, kept in a cage. I guess slavery is OK when there is no right or wrong. LOL
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.