Posted on 11/01/2005 6:42:25 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
On Nov. 4, 2003, Republican candidates made a strong showing in York County, Pa. Among the winners were Republican Heather Geesey, who was the top vote-getter among candidates for the nine-member Dover school board, with 2,674 votes. Democrat Aralene Callahan finished out of the running -- dead last, with 1,276 votes.
School board members voted 6-3 in 2004 to include these books as an optional supplement to freshman biology classes.
To hear Mrs. Callahan tell it, the school board thereby surrendered Dover's science curriculum to a Bible-thumping theocracy. If all you know about the case is what you've seen in the New York Times, then you might imagine that freshman science classes in Dover now resemble a Pentecostal revival meeting, complete with snake handling, faith healing and speaking in tongues.
But fear not, ye lovers of science, for Mrs. Callahan quickly rode to the rescue, sparing Dover's 14-year-olds a one-way ticket to the 13th century. The unpopular Democrat, who a year earlier had told the York Daily Record that her post-election plans included spending more time with her family, instead decided she needed to spend more time with the ACLU. And so it was that the board's plan became the object of a federal lawsuit, with Mrs. Callahan among the plaintiffs and Mrs. Geesey among the defendants.
The Dover evolution trial, then, represents the effort of Mrs. Callahan and her allies to win in court what they could not win at the ballot box.
...I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't say anything about schools or scientific theories. In fact, I think it fair to say that James Madison and his fellow Founders would have been horrified at the prospect of a federal judge telling folks in Dover what they should or should not teach their 14-year-olds.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Mat 7:22-23
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
These folks have mistakenly taken the battle into their own hands. They have chosen to dishonor God, which is what always happens when we take matters like these into our own hands. There is a difference between standing for the truth, and trying to force it down the throats of the unwilling.
1Sa 17:47 And all this assembly shall know that the LORD saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle [is] the LORD'S, and he will give you into our hands.
The ID movement needs a large slice of humble pie (self medication helps us to avoid these entanglements).
Well, no. It hasn't
Is even Behe sticking with the flagellum anymore, . . .
So why do you think the flagellum evolved from the TTSS?
Unfortunately, the biggest hinderence to Chrisianity is Christians. I well remember what I thought of them before I converted to Christianity. Christianity is true even if Christians aren't.
Postmodernism is a reaction against modernism. They may be said to be anti-modern. A postmodern mind can hold conflicting beliefs. Similarly, an evolutionist will perhaps assert that a theory is a fact and that laws such as the law of biogenesis and the law of cause and effect are not really laws at all. Postmodernists also believe that meaning is determined by the reader, not the writer, the hearer, not the speaker. Remember Bill Clinton and the meaning of "is?"
A photon of light is both a particle and a wave. I guess physicists are no better than Bill Clinton, either. Feh.
That's dirty pool!
Yeah, perhaps we could all use a little more humility, and to be sure, sweet reason is far more effective than a bludgeon. Problem is, when you think you're in a war, humility is too easily exploited as weakness.
Nobody defends any sort of a science theory the way evolution is defended. Only religions and lifestyles get defended like that.
I maybe missing Dembski’s point, but it looks like those who specialize in it on those forums aren’t and aren’t anywhere near stumped by it. John Pieret in Metaphors on Trial or, How did the Groundhog Cross the Road? calls it a three card monte game of metaphors.
Since the larger point of ID is that evolution is impossible, and refuted work like that by Dembski and a few others are its only “evidence”, ID looks to be without evidence.
Like I said, I’m not available give such technical discussions the attention required, but I’m sure some of the people on those forums I linked to would love to hear from you if that’s what you study and debate. If you give me a link to your posts there, and I’ll promote them here.
Actually . . . if their rebuttal is the arguments advanced by design advocates boil down to an 'argument from ignorance,' as well as an 'argument from personal incredulity.'", they are.
Since the larger point of ID is that evolution is impossible,
No, the point of ID is that evolution falls short at explaining biodiversity. You can be an IDer and an evolutionist -- like Behe.
That’s the same as claiming evolution as an explanation of life is impossible. Saying evolution “falls short” is not evidence of design. That’s just claiming weaknesses.
For evolutionary criticism to be evidence of ID, it would have to identify something impossible in evolution. Nothing attempted so far stands up to review as far as I can tell.
Do you mean evolution as an explanation for life -- which would be impossible? Or do you mean evolution as part of the explanation as to why life varies, to which nobody really objects?
I have always considered you one of the true seekers of truth. You have consistently handled me with civility and respect. For that I am thankful. Also, I vividly remember being skeptical of the things said in the Bible, therefore I cannot fault that in another.
God will always reveal Himself to the true seeker before it is to late, for He is perfectly just, and more real than the noses on our face. C.S. Lewis described the angelic host as being more substantial than humans. They can pass through us like we are just a vapor. After the resurrection, Christ suddenly appeared to the disciples within a locked room.
Jhn 20:26-28
26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: [then] came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace [be] unto you.
27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
My hope is that you let those walls between you and Him down soon -- as Thomas did in the above passage -- for He is truly a Beautiful Savior. In my personal experience, days spent in fellowship with Him are far superior to the days I spent without Him.
Any theory which lacks journal citations was dismissed by the reviewers before it gained any general consideration.
This does not mean the reviewers were correct, just that they controlled what went into print.
A geomorphologist I know ran into this problem, after finding permafrost polygons on White Butte in North Dakota (Highest point in the State). Not an unexpected item, considering that the Continental Ice Sheets stopped not far from there. His paper, with evidence, was summarily dismissed "because there are no permafrost polygons in North Dakota".
The application of circular reasoning by reviewers is all that is necessary to halt science in its tracks. The continued application of circular reasoning will ensure that an idea, hypothesis, or theory will not get exposed to the processes of scientific debate which will verify or refute the premises therein.
Science can be just as dogmatic as religion, any day.
We, as scientists have nothing to lose by hashing issues out but our prejudices and time, and nothing to gain but the answers to the questions we pursue--but only if we have not wed ourselves irrevocably to a specific theory, and instead to the pursuit of truth.
If we were faced tomorrow with incontravertible, readily verifiable evidence that new species came out of a workshop in the hollow core of the Earth, there having been constructed by green elves with purple polka dots, that would be no skin off of my hindparts one way or the other. Those who would suffer most are those who have built their entire careers on other theories who could not, would not, admit they were off the mark.
I am glad my area of expertise yields far more immediate results: either the well produces oil or it does not. If not, why didn't the model work? (Just to help get it right next time.)
I have even been in situations where data predicted structural highs and none were present--but the well produced nonetheless. Having recognized that the false expectation of structural highs yielded a positive indicator for the presence of producible hydrocarbons, I got the president of the company to reconsider revamping the seismic processing, because we were finding oil even if we were not finding the structures which were supposed to be there, and that is what we were there for.
"That’s the same as claiming evolution as an explanation of life is impossible.”“Do you mean evolution as an explanation for life -- which would be impossible? Or do you mean evolution as part of the explanation as to why life varies, to which nobody really objects?"
I don’t what I said that was unclear, unless you consider abiogenesis outside evolutionary theory rather than one of its components.
Unlike evolution, ID has no objective evidence. The closest thing that could arguably take it out of social studies class and into science class is its claim that evolution as an explanation for life or an explanation of biodiversity is impossible. AFAIK, everything its proponents have put forth as proof to that effect has been refuted. That makes it without evidence.
Actually, on FR's crevo boards that's a huge, huge controversy. The general consensus appears to be that it shouldn't be considered, and the pro-evos are this view's biggest proponent.
As for me, I'm inclined to agree with you. Abiogenesis is part of evolutionary theory -- at least as far as it is taught in our schools and common culture.
Unlike evolution, ID has no objective evidence
Where is the objective evidence for abiogenesis?
Well, let's look at what we know about the earliest life. There is the undoubted fact that life arose. There is the strong evidence for common ancestry. There is evidence RNA preceded DNA, that the genetic code was once considerably simpler, and that the RNA translation machinery evolved from a more primitive one which exploted direct binding affinities between triplet codons and amino acids, rather than tRNA. There is evidence also that the earliest life were chemotrophs with much simpler metabolism, and they exploited inorganic oxidation-reactions directly, with less mediation by enzymes. So the first thing one has to say is that much of the complexity you see in life was not present in the common ancestor, which was a much simpler beast altogther.
As to how it arose; no we don't have direct evidence yet, though there are hints. But we do know that evolution took us the remaining 90% of the way between primitive chemotrophs and complex multicellular organisms; one has to ask, why invoke a separate mechanism for the first 10%? Personally, I favor abiogenesis at high temperatures near ocean vents, where there are huge gradients of thermodynamic potentials, a situation known to favor self organization, lots of diverse metal ions and odd chemistry, as well as pre-existing order and catalytic potential as a result of the surface itself.
I agree, it’s a weakness in evolution that should be challenged. I remember there were sub-components of RNA (proteins as I think) were found naturally and some that could be created, but it was incomplete. The next best evidence is probably that it fits into the larger evolutionary theory for which there is evidence. But I agree, it’s a big unknown.
If I were a theist, I'd wonder why God gave me curiosity and then expected me to take so much on faith.
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.