Trial Over 'Intelligent Design' Resumes

AP - Science ^ | 2005-09-27 | MARTHA RAFFAELE

[Junior]

Crevo threads for the past week:

2005-09-26 Creationism, Christianity, and Common Sense
2005-09-26 Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution
2005-09-26 Dispute over evolution goes on trial in U.S. court
2005-09-26 Does Genesis hold up under critic’s scrutiny? (Creation/Evolution)
2005-09-26 New Analyses Bolster Central Tenets of Evolution Theory
2005-09-26 The Problem With Evolution
2005-09-26 With world watching, trial starts
2005-09-25 In Evolution Debate, Creationists Are Breaking New Ground
2005-09-24 The trouble with Darwin (Bush's I.D. comments changed Australia's Educational Landscape)
2005-09-23 Ultimate thread on Dover, Pennsylvania's Evolution v. Intelligent Design trial
2005-09-22 Court Case Threatens to 'Drag Science into the Supernatural'
2005-09-22 Evan Jamieson, hydrometallurgy (Creation/Evolution)
2005-09-22 Insight into our sight: A new view on the evolution of the eye lens (Desperate conjuncture)
2005-09-22 Intelligent Design: An Ambiguous Assault on Evolution
2005-09-22 Intelligent designers down on Dover
2005-09-22 Intelligible Design
2005-09-21 Intelligent design? Not on this campus [Pennsylvania]
2005-09-21 Researchers create functioning artificial proteins using nature's rules

Crevo Warrior Freepdays for the month of September:

2005-09-17 Arnhart
2001-09-06 atlaw
2004-09-22 coffee260
2004-09-15 Diana in Wisconsin
2001-09-17 Dimensio
2003-09-25 gobucks
2001-09-14 Heartlander
2004-09-13 johnnyb_61820
2004-09-09 LouAvul
2004-09-16 ml1954
2003-09-14 neverdem
2003-09-09 RightWingAtheist
1998-09-17 tallhappy
2003-09-25 truthfinder9
1999-09-23 Tumbleweed_Connection

In Memoriam. Fallen Crevo Warriors:

ALS
Aric2000
bluepistolero
ConservababeJen
DittoJed2
f.Christian
goodseedhomeschool
gore3000
jedigirl
JesseShurun
medved
metacognative
Modernman
peg the prophet
RickyJ
SeaLion
Tomax

Bring back SeaLion and Mondernman!

[JamesP81]

Oh no. Not another crevo thread

[JamesP81]

I don't see a problem with them mentioning the theory in school. School is a place that people learn, after all.

[NJ_gent]

"Eight families sued, saying that the district policy in effect promotes the Bible's view of creation"

Not necessarily...

[TexasGreg]

The statement read to Dover students states in part, "Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered." Miller said the words are "tremendously damaging," falsely undermining the scientific status of evolution.

"What that tells students is that science can't be relied upon and certainly is not the kind of profession you want to go into," he said.

I don't see how the statement read to Dover students constitute what Miller says they constitute. Indeed, don't they simply express the TRUTH relative to anything in science ... that Science is about testing theories as new evidence is discovered? Or, is Evolution supposed to be taught to students as if it were some kind of dogma that is immune to any new theoretical development? From my reading of the Evolutionary literature, the theory (actually, the theories ... for there is more than one Theory of Evolution) is in significant flux and is continually being re-defined by scientists.

[Junior]

They are not asking the same disclaimer for gravitational theory, or electrical theory, or atomic theory, are they?

[paolop]

Isn't it natural and healthy to doubt everything?

[PatrickHenry]

I think we've both posted the same article. This is getting confusing. We ought to settle on one thread.

[TexasGreg]

They are not asking the same disclaimer for gravitational theory, or electrical theory, or atomic theory, are they?

No ... but, then, the claims that are made for Evolutionary Theory are not being made for gravitational theory, electrical theory, or atomic theory ... or string theory, for that matter. That's the point. In physics its clear that these theories apply well to what we know regarding how the universe works, but nevertheless it is understood that Science is always open to change, refinement, and further development as new discoveries and advances in knowledge are made. The statement referenced in the court hearing doesn't say anything different about Evolutionary Theory. Yet, Dr. Miller is objecting to it, claiming that admitting this is somehow tantamount to undermining science?

[Junior]

Fine with me. I thought I beat everyone else to the punch.

[Junior]

Certainly. However, why single out the theory of evolution for a disclaimer?

[Junior]

Oh my goodness! AP now endorses religion!

Really? Explain.

[blowfish]

They are not asking the same disclaimer for gravitational theory, or electrical theory, or atomic theory, are they?

Just wait. Someone will notice Joshua 10 verse 13, (The sun delayed going down about a full day), and demand a new theory of Newtonian mechanics that allows for the non-conservation of angular momentum. This conservation is 'only a theory' which 'has never been proven' after all.

Or maybe they will just challenge the heliocentric model of the solar system. All that astronomy may just be unproven theories as well...

[VadeRetro]

Well, it looks like Italian again tonight! Thanks a bunch!

Can I bill you for my bypass surgery when I need it?

[cryptical]

Certainly. However, why single out the theory of evolution for a disclaimer?

"Intelligent Design, on the other hand, does not meet the criteria to be considered a scientific theory. Therefore it is impossible to prove or disprove it, or study it using scientific methods".

[Junior]

Evolutionary theory is one of the best-supported theories in science, regardless of what your pastor or those creationist websites claim. The theory has been tested and has passed those tests for 150 years. The other theories mentioned are much younger.

Honestly, if folks knew a tenth of what they think they know when it comes to the Theory of Evolution, this trial would never have occured.

[itsahoot]

Try this essay for a possible explanation of the long day.

http://www.zealllc.com/2002/astrology.htm

[tumblindice]

`People feel most strongly regarding things about which they know the least.' Montaigne

Or something like that.