Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent design on trial
Washington Times ^ | 9/28/05

Posted on 09/28/2005 3:28:36 AM PDT by Crackingham

It's unfortunate that intelligent design is standing trial in Pennsylvania. Scientific theories require decades, sometimes centuries, to develop, to withstand scrutiny before they are accepted as legitimate. Trying to force acceptance -- or denial -- quickly is an end-run around the scientific method and the spirit of free inquiry. Whatever the lower courts decide about whether intelligent design can be mentioned in public schools, the controversy will probably reach the Supreme Court, which will be asked to determine what is scientific and what is not.

Clearly, the Dover Area School District, by forcing the issue with its requirement that teachers read a four-paragraph "statement" identifying intelligent design as an alternative theory to Darwinian evolution, has done neither science nor students any favors. Intelligent design is a proposition in a state of infancy, and has not earned a place in public school curriculums. A wide range of alternative propositions are never taught precisely because there is no structure to challenge prevailing opinion. That doesn't mean the alternatives are wrong; but students should learn first the best explanation, given what is known. Despite its many flaws, Darwinian evolution remains the standard.

It's no surprise that 11 Dover parents, with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is ever eager to advance atheism as secular theology, sued the school district on the grounds that intelligent design is "a 21st century version of creationism." In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism in public schools violates the Constitution's establishment clause, separating church and state. Both critics and proponents with no advanced scientific degree, who have so eagerly judged the supernatural premises of intelligent design, only demonstrate their political or religious biases.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

1 posted on 09/28/2005 3:28:36 AM PDT by Crackingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Ping.


2 posted on 09/28/2005 3:29:48 AM PDT by Junior (Some drink to silence the voices in their heads. I drink to understand them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

What we recommend," the institute says, "is that teachers and students study more about Darwinian evolution, not only the evidence that supports the theory, but also scientific criticisms of the theory."

Yea, please explain how the beginning of the world began. Was it the "Big Bang Theory"? That sure sounds scientific!


3 posted on 09/28/2005 3:34:39 AM PDT by NVD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junior

Criticizing Charles Darwin does not make one a creationist, despite the allegations of many Darwinists, whose arguments often are reduced to petty ad hominem attacks

Never heard that here!


4 posted on 09/28/2005 3:36:57 AM PDT by NVD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Junior; longshadow; VadeRetro; balrog666; general_re; RadioAstronomer; js1138

Is this the one thread we'll ping for today, or should we wait for another? I don't want to ping the list for more than one thread per day on this subject. It drives everyone crazy.


5 posted on 09/28/2005 3:43:01 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NVD
Criticize all you want, but make sure you can support your criticisms with something other than a cartoon understanding of evolution. Otherwise, do not be surprised when someone with a lot more knowledge on the subject hands you your tail end.

As I've often pointed out, if the folks criticizing evolution knew one-tenth about the subject they think they know, they wouldn't be criticizing it.

6 posted on 09/28/2005 3:46:13 AM PDT by Junior (Some drink to silence the voices in their heads. I drink to understand them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

"A wide range of alternative propositions are never taught precisely because there is no structure to challenge prevailing opinion. "

Because the infrastructure of prevailing opinion is owned by communists ... the Left University. And Machivellian politics are employed to eliminate competition. Funny, with all the Anti ID effort out there, you'd think the obviousness of Darwinism would be enough for people to say, well, yes, right, the 'evidence' is just overwhelming.


7 posted on 09/28/2005 3:46:14 AM PDT by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/Laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Both critics and proponents with no advanced scientific degree, who have so eagerly judged the supernatural premises of intelligent design, only demonstrate their political or religious biases.

Perhaps the most honest comment in the piece; ID is not science, it is philosophy, and has no business being taught as a science.
8 posted on 09/28/2005 3:46:51 AM PDT by ARCADIA (Abuse of power comes as no surprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Dunno. However, if everyone who stumbles across a crevo thread would ping me (for completeness sake), I would appreciate it.


9 posted on 09/28/2005 3:47:33 AM PDT by Junior (Some drink to silence the voices in their heads. I drink to understand them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Junior
What do you say to this one? If it's a "go," then I'll post it and ping. It'll the the "official" thread for the day. If not, then we'll wait.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/1-09282005-547545.html

10 posted on 09/28/2005 3:51:56 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NVD
Yea, please explain how the beginning of the world began. Was it the "Big Bang Theory"? That sure sounds scientific!



You do know that Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with cosmology?
11 posted on 09/28/2005 3:57:24 AM PDT by macamadamia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Here's another one for your perusal:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1492702/posts


12 posted on 09/28/2005 4:01:42 AM PDT by TheGhostOfTomPaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Junior

I would like to know more about how the world began......was it "Big Bang"?
My assertions have been called myopic in the past but the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the anthropic principal, and irreducible complexity make sense to me (I see evidence in nature every day). My problem is that there can never be a DISCUSSION on FR because those that agree with evolution do not explain the holes in their own argument and reduce the ID argument to creationism or religion.


13 posted on 09/28/2005 4:03:32 AM PDT by NVD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NVD
Does that mean you are a non-creationist? You deny that the world exists? Or do you deny that it was ever created?

Is it just all imagination? Or does it just "be what it is" -- that curiousity stopping zen koan?

Personally, I'd reckon anyone who is NOT at some level a creationist is insane, either by chemistry or choice. Why? Because things started somewhere and somehow.

Moreover -- and this is to many (but not to me) a seperate point, but the very very physics and chemisty that we have come to learn by scientific study is to an unimaginably high degree unlikely to have arisen from some random process -- and just as or more impossibly likely to be able to continue in some stable state of being for any time. Therefore not only is there a Creator, but a Maintainer. One and the same, for the two activites are too close, too cohesive to be otherwise.

And that's just plain sense -- to deny is the insanity.

14 posted on 09/28/2005 4:07:21 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TheGhostOfTomPaine; anguish; Junior; longshadow; VadeRetro; balrog666; general_re; ...
Thanks, but it's getting out of hand. I like this one: Ex-Teacher Testifies in Evolution Case, but if ten other articles get posted this morning, I won't post it. And I won't ping for more than one thread on this topic per day.
15 posted on 09/28/2005 4:07:21 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bvw

Good point! I agree!
Yes, I am a creationist but the argument of most naturalists disregard ID simply because they consider it faith or religion, but never science. There is a scientific component to ID in addition to what you mentioned in your previous thread.


16 posted on 09/28/2005 4:21:00 AM PDT by NVD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: NVD

Well thanks! 'ave a good day!


18 posted on 09/28/2005 4:23:49 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Dyson
The Big Bang theory is much more scientific than just saying "God did it" in order to explain unknown phenomena

My point exactly.......reduce the argument of ID to a simple 'God did it'.

Many very intelligent people can come to different conclusions based upon their background and their eduction. I am not ready (like many myopic creationists) to say that evolution is the antithesis of ID. I agree with some of Darwin's theories, but I believe it takes more faith to believe in an evolutionists theory of the beginning of existence than it does to believe that there was an intelligent design behind all life.

When I see a watch that has washed up on the beach, I don't automatically think....this was created over millions of years by water erosion......I find it more reasonable to say, this watch was created by a watchmaker.
19 posted on 09/28/2005 4:44:23 AM PDT by NVD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Ping for latah!!


20 posted on 09/28/2005 4:48:49 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (As long as liberalism and I exist, neither one of us is safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson