Students told about intelligent design: District 1st to inform pupils of alternative to Darwinism

A school district in the Amish-region town of Dover, Pa., became the first in the nation to officially inform biology students of the theory of intelligent design as an alternative to Darwin's theory of Evolution.

A one-minute statement read at the beginning of the school term says Darwin's theory is not a fact and continues to be tested, and "intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view."

As WorldNetDaily reported, the American Civil Liberties Union is challenging the new policy in a federal lawsuit, but decided not to go forward with a request for a temporary restraining order to block its implementation at the beginning of the school term this week.

Last week, teachers said they would not read the required statement, but the assistant superintendent carried out the reading Monday to two biology classes at Dover High School. Classes yesterday and today also were scheduled to hear the statement.

The school provided an opt-out, allowing students to join teachers in the hall outside the classroom when the statement is being read, but only 15 out of 170 made that choice.

"Biology students in this small town received perhaps the most balanced science education regarding Darwin's theory of evolution than any other public school student in the nation," said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm representing the school district against the ACLU lawsuit.

"This is not a case of science versus religion, but science versus science, with credible scientists now determining that based upon scientific data, the theory of evolution cannot explain the complexity of living cells," Thompson continued.

The ACLU, along with Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, filed the lawsuit in December arguing intelligent design theory is inherently religious.

"It is ironic that the ACLU after having worked so hard to prevent the suppression of Darwin's theory in the Scopes trial, is now doing everything it can to suppress any effort to challenge it," said Thompson.

The ACLU made its decision not to ask for the restraining order after reviewing documents, board-meeting minutes and several depositions of board members and the superintendent.

The lawsuit will continue with a trial later this year, but Thompson said the ACLU's unwillingness to procede with a restraining order indicates it recognizes the strength of the school district's case.

National polls show most parents want schools to teach alternative theories to evolution, the Law Center points out.

In Dover, teachers will still teach and test on the theory of evolution according to Pennsylvania Academic Standards, but students will now be told they can find out more information about intelligent design through a book available in the school library titled "Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins."

The theory of intelligent design, endorsed by a growing number of credentialed scientists, says the best way to explain complex, information-rich structures observed by biologists is by the existence of a designer. Unlike creationism, however, intelligent design limits its scope to empirical observation and does not identify the designer.

The Pennsylvania school district is the first in the country to require teachers to make students aware of the controversy surrounding evolution while specifically referring to the theory of intelligent design as an alternative.

Your resurrecting a two year old thread is absolutely immaterial...

It's a statement of fact - you're a proven fraud. Sorry you don't like that, but there it is.

Your motivation is nothing else than a feeble attempt at credibility assisination, intending thereby to negate...

So, you read minds too? How can I be responsible for what you imagine my motivations are? And how can I "assassinate" your character? Based on your record, you have none.

Your tactics are based upon the fallacious argumentum ad verecundiam (in reverse) and Tu Quoque.

Where did you get that K-Mart degree? Ad verecundiam is the appeal to inappropriate authority, and anyone who bothered to read my posts can clearly see that I didn't cite any authority in concluding that you're wasting everyone's time. Nor does "reversed" ad verecundiam make any sense whatsoever. What would that mean? Appeal to appropriate authority? Non-appeal to non-authority? And how can I be guilty of tu quoque? You never accused me of stealing other people's stuff, so how can I be throwing your accusation back at you?

Google is no substitute for an education, son.

However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.

What diversionary tactic? Doctors aren't biologists, as I said from the beginning, so the meat of your "argument" - what there is of one, anyway - got destroyed twenty posts ago. Why would I want to "divert" people from realizing you're full of it? As for defending yourself against the fact that you're a known fraud, be my guest - I'm interested to hear you mount a defense as much as anyone is. You sure didn't hang around to defend yourself back when you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar, that's for sure.

Your whole long winded posting is utterly lacking any relevance whatsoever with respect to the point I originally made. You can insist on sticking to your sophistry if it makes you feel better. Argue whatever way pleases you, even with offhanded comments about K-Mart degree's, which incidentally is just more ad hominem attack. I have no clue what Qwicky Mart you got your education from, but once a debater opens the door to ad hominem, responding in like kind is perfectly legitmate. Moreover, you certainly didn't learn how to read at that Qwicky Mart either, because I never said anything about character, its not character that's the issue here: your intention is to discredit my credibility.

What you did fundamentally is the very basis of ad verecundiam (which for your information is not an appeal to inappropriate authority, its the appeal to any authority whatsoever). However, I mispoke when I said "in reverse" when I intended to state in negation. I'll even allow for the possibility that I'm citing the wrong fallacy entirley. Nevertheless, clearly you're obsessed with this issue from two years ago about citation of works, and so now you raise the issue about fraud. This done in attempt to discredit (and thereby not have to answer the charges made), something by the way that you've not done. Furthermore, in fact if I recall correctly, there's was no actual dispute of the content of what I said two years ago, and that the quote's were actually cited by experts but the issue became that of citation of sources used. Isn't that it?

The only thing that you've stated that has any cogent bearing on what I said in thise thread was "doctors aren't biologists." No sh*t sherlock. However, that's about as nonsensical of an argument that anybody can possibly make. Is it your position that doctors don't have to study biology? Instead of identifying, specifying precisely where it is that evolutionary theory is absolutly necessary for the advancement of science in general (all fields), and biology specifically, you chose evasion, obfuscation and sophistry.

Your comment respecting reading of minds is laughable, as you are so transparent anybody can read you like a book (a comic book). And if you truly believe you're not being diversionary using argumentum Tu Quoque, your not only a moron, your delusional. The issue isn't about me defending anything, the issue is you defending YOUR pet theory.

And secondly, upon what did you base your commentary about creationist jargon? Are you inferring something about me that I didn't imply? Or did you perhaps jump to conclusions?

Furthermore, given the situation as I presented it, upon what did you premise the situation was based on antibiotic resistant bacteria in the first place? What evidence do you have that the symptoms are not caused by a virus? I'm glad your not my doctor. Nevertheless, if the symptoms are due to a virus, what does evolutionary theory have to say about that?

Supposing the symptoms were caused by influenza? Does the child now have lifelong immunity from influenza? If not, why not? And if you answer that its because the virus mutated in accordance to evolution, well, riddle me this Batman: what species of virus did the mutated influenza virus become? Did change into either an arbor, chikungunya, cytomegalic, ECHO, enteric, fixe, helper, hapatatropic, immunodeficiency, lytic, masked, neurotropic, parainfluenzic, synctical virus? Maybe it became a retro-virus, or perhaps a corona virus, or maybe a whole new hereto unseen virus? Or is it STILL an influenza virus?

Bottom line, variation of species does not prove speciation. Your argument is fallacious.

your intention is to discredit my credibility.

You really need to lay off the mind-reading bit - it's not working. What you're trying to do - and I don't blame you, considering the crap hand you're holding - is trying to make my motives the subject of debate. Try all you like, but regardless of your feverish imagination, my motivations are irrelevant - either what I say is true, or it isn't. And it's a demonstrable fact that you're a fraud. Sorry you don't like that, but maybe you can get the mods to can this handle for you, and you can come back and start over again. Next time, I suggest you not post fraudulently and thereby destroy your reputation.

What you did fundamentally is the very basis of ad verecundiam (which for your information is not an appeal to inappropriate authority, its the appeal to any authority whatsoever).

No. Read a book sometime. Start here.

What charges? Your thesis is in flames, your credibility is in flames - what more do you want? Heck, I didn't have to destroy your credibility - you did that all by yourself.

Instead of identifying, specifying precisely where it is that evolutionary theory is absolutly necessary for the advancement of science in general (all fields), and biology specifically...

So basically, you want me to refute an argument you didn't make. You never talked about biology, you never talked about science "in general", you just sailed off on some ridiculous tangent about what makes a qualified doctor. Wonderful. Good for you. But the topic today is whether evolution belongs in biology classes where people learn biology, not med school. When you're ready to discuss the actual subject, and not some junk you just invented, I'll be around.

And if you truly believe you're not being diversionary using argumentum Tu Quoque...

"Believe"? I know you don't know what you're talking about - I used to teach rhetoric, so please save the blathering and BS'ing for someone else, mmmkay? Because you aren't fooling me, not by a long shot.

Or is it STILL an influenza virus?

We know one influenza virus became SARS. Unless you want to tell me which one of Noah's family was infected with the SARS virus on the ark?

But speaking of influenza and your silly claim that evolution is useless, Scientist use the theory of evolution every year to predict and develop the flu vaccine (Here are some methods)thus saving thousands to millions of lives every year.

Now please tell me, What great medical benefit did ID or Creationism do we benefit from?

Maybe we should follow the Bible to find cures for dieases, Like the treatment for Leporsy in Leviticus 14

Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly away. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally find another pair of birds. Kill one and dip the live bird in the dead bird's blood. Wipe some blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle the house with blood 7 times.

Yeah I'm sure that works wonders, But I think I'll stick with modern medicine thank you.

xxxxxxxxxxx

The argument that sufficient time makes anything possible or even probable sound plausible should insuficient anlysis of existing data be carefully done. I am not a biological expert, so my opinion should be considered accordingly. Nervertheless, and that being said, the admission that, since even the simplest living organisms are exceedingly complicated, the beginning of life by accidental chemical reactions is very improbable, shuold be the beginning of one's pursuit to an answer.

The probability is extremely low that just the right molecules would form, come together, and spontaneously fit together to start life. But if a very unlikely thing is tried many times, the probability increases that success will finally be achieved. If there is enough time to make a large enough number of tries, the mathematical probability that it will finally occur becomes almost certainty.

Allow me to put this into context.

Scientific American for February, 1991, carried a ten-page survey article by staff writer John Horgan. His review of forty years of research and interviews with the current leaders showed that the principal problems I assert are still unsolved. In the final paragraph Prof. Stanley Miller of the University of California at San Diego is quoted admitting the failure of the enterprise to date.

"I think we just haven't learned the right tricks yet. ...When we find the answer, it will probably be so damned simple that we'll all say, 'Why didn't I think of that before?'"

O.k. so its so "damned" simple, eh? Lets look into that.

Your position (despite your resounded spanking on the other thread) is that anti-microbial (or multiple anti-microbrobial) is some sort of proof for/support evolution.

Have not four decades of intensive research brought scientist close to explaining life's origin? With respect to questions concerning chemical compounds or reactions imagined for the beginning of life, and the fact of living organisms, a huge barrier or gap of ignorance exists. In fact after 100 years of serious investigation, the "evolution" camp is no farther along than before they started. If that is not true, then what have "they" accomplished?

Allow me to address that specific issue you seem fixated upon as some sort of "proof" of evolution.

The central element of RNA World research is the ability of some RNA molecules to act as enzymes. Some short RNA chains can promote the assembly of their complementary chains. In a complementary chain A is replaced with T and G with A, and vice versa. Prof. Leslie E. Orgel of the Salk Institute is on record saying that "years of effort have failed to get the next crucial step to take place without the help of protein molecules."

That step in which the initial RNA chain and its complementary chain are separated, and the complementary chain becomes the template on which a copy of the initial chain is constructed is utterly crucial to the theory.

Without the previous evolution of specialized protein molecules, "...it appears unlikely that a self-replicating ribozyme could arise, but without some form of self-replication there is no way to conduct an evolutionary search for the first, primitive self-replicating ribozyme.

As I understand it, your position is to argue that bacterial mutations respecting adaptation to antibactirial agents is a random change to some gene. Every individual organism inherits a set of genes from its parent or parents. Most genes contain coded instructions for building the thousands of different protein molecules found in living cells. The average gene contains 600 to 1800 precisely ordered code letters. A mutation which changes, adds, or subtracts a single letter can change the coded message and thus modify the resulting protein. A very slight change -- in fact most changes in a protein molecule -- can cause it to function poorly or not at all.

As a result the organism usually is not as viable (able to live) as the wild strain of the organism before mutation, and many mutations are lethal (deadly). Geneticists have concluded that the vast majority of visible mutations are disadvantageous for the organism. Sir Julian Huxley estimated that perhaps less than one-tenth percent of all mutations could be advantageous to an organism.1 This cannot be quantitatively demonstrated by experiment, however. Of the remainder some are apparently neutral, but the majority either weaken or kill the

This, precisely is my point for quite some time: should MSRA be subjected to environmental conditions outside its "normals" the bacteria dies. And mind you, its not that the conditions are to be considered "extreme" by those who are experts in staph aureus.

Geneticists have concluded that the vast majority of visible mutations are disadvantageous for the organism. Sir Julian Huxley estimated that perhaps less than one-tenth percent of all mutations could be advantageous to an organism. This cannot be quantitatively demonstrated by experiment, however. Of the remainder some are apparently neutral, but the majority either weaken or kill the individual.

My point is that if you obtain a sample of MSRA, and you stress it somehow (either by Ph, or by ultra-violet light, or by temperature, et ali), the bug dies in numbers akin to that of its ancestors when first exposed to anti-biotica. Subsequently, if the "scientist" takes the remainders of the colony, and cultivates it, and then examines the genetic code, the "scientist" find no difference between it and the wild culture.

Are you telling me this is proof of "evolution" a priori and simultaneous a posteriori?

Let me tell you something: you don't know evolution as well as you "believe" you to.

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.