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.
"The ultimate trolling technique. Your purpose for being here."
I see. Well, you're incorrect, but I have no more time today to engage with you. I have work to do, and other things later in the day, like celebrating my wedding anniversary.
I'll leave you to your activities here on Free Republic for the time being. Enjoy!
Precisely what you folks think. The ultimate liberal philosophy. Everything is OK if we say it is. We define right and wrong and therefore it is what we say it is. And we can change it anytime the wind blows.
That is how we got baby murder in this country. That is how we got slavery. That is how we get wealth redistribution.
This said, I think we should cut through the bull about opposing intelligent design in the interest of maintaining the "integrity" of science classes, and recognize that *most* of those who incessantly bash the notion of intelligent design do so because they chaff at the idea that there is a Designer behind all of life that they are ultimately responsible to. Some on these threads are admitted atheists, and I can at least respect their opposition to intelligent design because they're honest about where they're coming from, but the secular fundamentalists who oppose intelligent design by hiding behind a veneer of "intellectual integrity" don't impress me. Many of them call the intelligent design proponents "ignorant" in a way which shows these opponents of intelligent design to be both arrogant and intolerant of any faith but their own.
Frankly, I don't see how the notion of intelligent design hurts anyone -- unless one is so opposed to the idea of the existence of God that it makes them skirm. It's pretty obvious that this is where some of the opponents of ID are coming from.
That is how we got slavery.
That's not a very good example, since the only FReeper I've seen defend slavery was a creationist, who defended it based on the Bible....
Frankly, I don't see how the notion of intelligent design hurts anyone -- unless one is so opposed to the idea of the existence of God that it makes them skirm. It's pretty obvious that this is where some of the opponents of ID are coming from.
The ultimate in silly arguments - if you can't actually support your position, make insinuations about the motives of others.
The decision was a case of gross judicial activism -- telling a school board what they can and can't include in the curricula of their schools. Parents who are offended by the idea of intelligent design being broached in a science class have the option of electing new school board members. The judge should have kept his nose out of it. This is a perfect example of what is wrong with our federal judiciary.
Did anyone satisfactorially answer your question?
Perhaps they're not your motives. I said "most"...thereby avoiding painting everyone with the brush. If you're opposition to ID isn't based upon an inherent hatred of God, congratulations.
Most of us Christians who bash ID do so because ID is not anything. It's not science and it takes time away from teaching people anything in biology class.
It's not religion because it says it's not.
It would be better if all the ID supporters would be honest and just say that they'd like to see Christian electives based on the Bible, offered in public school.
I'd support that.
My kids already have to take "religions of the world" classes that are worse than useless.
It's time for the ID'ers to quit pussy-footing around and use their considerable resources to push for opening the public schools to what 75% of the American, Church-going public, already believes.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
I have seen many atheists defend slavery, now what?
Perhaps they're not your motives. I said "most"...thereby avoiding painting everyone with the brush. If you're opposition to ID isn't based upon an inherent hatred of God, congratulations.
It's still the sillest of arguments - only now you've made it worse by trying to pretend that you weren't impunging the motives of all your opponents, only "most" of them.
It still betrays an inability to articulately defend your own position, that you have to stoop to such worthless tactics.
I have seen many atheists defend slavery, now what?
Where? Not on these Dover threads.
Let's not change the issue. This case arose only because a band of scientifically illiterate zealots decided -- contrary to the advice of their lawyer and the schools' science teachers -- to ram their pet religious concept into the science curriculum.
This would have been no problem had it been a private school, but the government-run schools are constrained by the state and federal constitutions regarding the establishment of religion. Many on this thread don't like that, but we're all stuck with it until such time as those constitutions are changed.
So when parents object, the matter naturally falls before a judge. If the zealots then use as their pathetic defense that their pet doctrine is "science," and that's their defense to violating the establishment clause, the judge has no choice but to deal with the merits of that defense.
In other words, the judge isn't -- as your post suggests -- on a general mission to decide what is or what isn't science. He didn't go looking for this one. It's entirely due to the zealots on the school board. They brought the whole thing on themselves.
Amiably,
I would high tail it as well if I was the one caught defending situational ethics and claiming morality is whatever a group of people say it is.
Genocide isn't wrong where it is accepted? It's only immoral to other societies?
And to suggest that the society in this country rejects murder is preposterous. Millions of babies have been murdered in the name of convenience. And all you moral relativists look the other way.
In any case, it's irrelevant because your childish attempt at association is pathetic.
I guess there is always the outside chance you forgot the sarcasm tag. Probably not though.
Thanks for the afternoon giggle. It would have been more, but my mood was tempered by the fact that your attempt at parody is so very and so sadly close to reality.
Neo Darwinsts---neo neo darwinists...every time they are outed with their false claims they grasp onto other interpretations of the same flawed theory.
Those pesky Haeckel embryo drawings, and the incredible expanding beak of the Galapagos finch. So many hoaxes and so little time. So much backtracking...so many lies.
Lies lies lies. Darwin and neo Darwin and neo neo Darwin - packed with lies.
Hmm how many frauds have there been in archeology?
Getting rid of the knowledge of God is not just a goal for government school curriculum, but for all education, for all children.
....................................................
I fear this too. Yet somehow I see a glimmer of hope. The secularists - many here as well - are in full forward attack mode. That tells me that they sense the growing antipathy toward those who deny the Lord his honor. When threatened they attack. And no doubt they feel threatened. That's a good thing!
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.