Posted on 04/20/2008 8:49:48 AM PDT by Soliton
“Intelligent Design” is of no scientific value in determining the origins of life in the universe. A designer would have to be supernatural (i.e. not subject to the laws of physics) or natural and subject to those laws. If the designer is natural in origin, then it would have to have been designed by another designer –again supernatural or natural. Ultimately come to an original designer that either evolved from a lower state of matter, or was created by a supernatural being. You will note that this is back to where we started. Science does not deal with supernatural phenomena by definition. Scientifically, the only answer is evolution. ID, however, is really about the cosmology of the Book of Genesis anyway, but if that is admitted, it can’t be taught in school. And there’s the rub.
The term “Intelligent Design” was adopted by the Discovery Institute, the originator of the ID movement, and a non-profit company that was incorporated specifically to get the story of Genesis taught in public schools (as specifically stated in the incorporation documents). To that end a Creationist textbook was published called Of Pandas and People.
In 1987, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that teaching creationism in public schools violated the separation of church and state in Edwards vs. Aquilard.
In a similar later case, Kitzmiller vs. The Dover Area School District involving the school’s acquisition of Of Pandas and People, it was proven in court that the publishers and the people who financed the purchase lied in depositions when they stated that Intelligent Design wasn’t just another term for Creationism. They did this by showing that dozens of passages in the pre-1987 Edwards vs. Aquilard copies of the book used “Creation”, while later versions substituted “Intelligent Design” in its place.
The entire Intelligent Design movement is a dishonest, legalistic Trojan horse specifically intended to teach creationism in public school even though it is against the law.
Complete transcripts of Kitzmiller vs. Dover can be found here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html
There are other religions with ancient books who believe it is revealed truth too. Older than the Bible too. Why is yours correct and theirs is wrong?
You aren’t old enough to know what public school was like prior to 1963, are you?
Do some research, and try to understand what it was like before the liberal activist Court unilaterally changed the Constitution in 1963.
You're evidently in denial as to what's going on with respect to the USSC's unconstitutional limiting of our religious freedoms.
Again, based on Jefferson's authoritative understanding of the 1st and 10th Amendments where our religious freedoms are concerned and John Bingham's clear explanation of scope and purpose of the 14th A., given people's 14th A. protections are respected, there's nothing in the Constitution that unconditionally prevents ID from being discussed in public school classrooms regardless of any religious overtones associated with ID.
Again, the people need to wise up to the federal government's scandalous ignoring of 10th A. protected state powers, particularly state power to address religious issues, and do a major spring cleaning in DC where government respect for our religious freedoms is concerned.
THEORIES are science genius.
Why do you refuse to answer my questions?
How, by obeying the law, am I an enemy of the republic that created the law byits own process? Take your paxil
Would you support giving Muslim creationist / ID supporters equal time?
What I fear is ignorance and stupidity. The assertion that ID will shut down science is absurd.
Yeah I miss segregation and smoking in the bathroom
* Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction[20] from the hypothesis or theory)* Experiments[21] (tests of all of the above)
You don't have any, do ya?
Doesn't. Doesn't claim to. Science can neither prove nor disprove the supernatural; the most it can do is say that there is no evidence of the supernatural in a phenomenon adequately explained by natural processes.
You are agreeing with a government that has not been obeying the law WRT the 1st Amendment. You’re an obedient little fascist. That’s how you are an enemy of the Republic.
Come to think of it, what law are you obeying? The law that the USSC passed in 1963? That’s what it seems you’re saying. The Republic that was established by our Founders restricted the Judicial Branch from passing laws.
If they make sense I would consider them. I do prefer theistic religions however.
It's not ID that's the problem. It's going to be the arguing over who's God gets to be considered to fulfill the role of "designer".
I knew that, that’s why I asked the question.
That’s not relevant to the discussion at hand. Besides, forced integration and busing were local issues that fedgov took over without Constitutional power to do so. You don’t seem to want to restrict fedgov in any area whatsoever.
I’m not sure how smoking gets into the discussion. Local schools forbid smoking prior to 1963.
False. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural. It is outside the realm of science.
At one time we had what was called "natural philosophy" which expained the God created natural order.
We will have to start teaching "natural science" from this or a similar perspective at universities and limit "science" to the natural/practical world where any questions of ultimate reality will be referred to the appropriate department.
I have never seen a university that, along with its science departments, did not have departments of religion, philosophy and theology. But when you say "limit 'science'," what you're talking about is stopping science from asking questions because it cannot yet provide an adequate answer. That amounts to strangling the most groundbreaking, innovative advances to science in their cradle.
Would you have a problem with a school district that decided to Islam, and only Islam, to their students, including your child?
If so, shut up.
Please open your mind and consider the following.
Jefferson promoted the idea of wards, "little republics," in a given state. In these little republics Muslims, for example, could choose to promote only Muslim religious values in Muslim community public schools. Likewise for Christians in Christian communities.
Mixed faith communities could optionally decide that no religious teaching would be conducted in their public schools, for example.
"My proposition [to divide every county into wards and to establish in each a free school] had for a further object, to impart to these wards those portions of self-government for which they are best qualified, by confiding to them the care of their poor, their roads, police, elections, the nomination of jurors, administration of justice in small cases, elementary exercises of militia; in short, to have made them little republics, with a warden at the head of each, for all those concerns which, being under their eye, they would better manage than the larger republics of the county or State. A general call of ward meetings by their wardens on the same day through the State, would at any time produce the genuine sense of the people on any required point, and would enable the State to act in mass." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813. ME 13:400
What religion was this country founded upon? islam? Hinduism? Scientology? Buddhism? Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. You get my drift.
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.