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 ...
The great scientists, like Newton, Galileo, Kepler, etc. were devout men who believed in God and saw science as a tool to get to know Him better. How far we have gone from that. Science has become an end in itself instead of a means to an end.
A verse I like is Col. 1:17. "For He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together". Science looked for a reason why the nucleus of an atom did not fly apart and decided that there must be a force holding it together and they called it the "strong" force. The Bible addressed it at a time when people didn't even have a concept of atoms and the fact that they would need to be held together. How could these "ignorant, bronze-age, goat-herders" (as they've been called by some) have known about this, much less concieved of the idea. There would have been nothing in their experience to indicate that things needed to be held together.
"After all, when they grow up, my kids will need someone to wash their toilets."
and then you said this:
"The only thing ID'ers have is cheap attacks."
I hope you didn't shoot yourself in the foot when you were in the bush.
The scoffing reveals much about those who use it, gondram............and it has nothing to do with either intellect or science.
"And you reject all 'appropriate evidence' because your faith teaches you that a designer, regardless of who or what it may be, is the same as the Easter Bunny or a ghost......and so you ridicule instead.
The scoffing reveals much about those who use it, gondram............and it has nothing to do with either intellect or science."
Nope, I am saying that we need evidence before we teach something as science and that the same principle of needing evidence is found in all fact based subjects.
If you don't do that, then there's no need for you to feel so defensive............which you obviously do.
"Same reasons that pertain to the Easter Bunny: there's no physical evidence that such a designer exists."
It appears that this is the crux of the matter. Scientists claim that no physical evidence that exists that can support the claim that a Creator exists. Creationists and IDers use the argument that the orderliness and complexity of the PHYSICAL universe IS evidence. Some scientists don't accept that as valid evidence so in their minds, no evidence has been presented.
and he died for you too
He wasted his time, then, didn't he?
Do you wish to continue denigrating the janitors because your kids understand the scientific positions of today?
Science is entertaining and sometimes helpful. Knowledge is not worthy of worship. It's primary value is that it can enrich our understanding of how awesome our Creator is making us less prideful and more humble.
Dennis Prager came up with a question that helps people to be aware of their personal alignments.
Which would upset you more:
a. Your child was caught smoking cigarettes.
b. Your child was caught cheating on a test.
Those who found (a) to be more upsetting were guided by a humanistic compass, and those who found (b) to be more upsetting were guided by a moral compass. The more one had to think it through, the more confused they are.
The humanistic compass points at ourselves and our natural limited understanding of reality (those with the biggest guns are reality -- Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Democrats...). Whereas, the moral compass points to the Creator and, by definition, His complete understanding of reality. The founders were clear on this point and modern Scientism has done more to move our country away from it's brilliant inception.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...."
Thankfully rights endowed by the Creator supersede the whimsical understandings of men. Reason does not lead one to righteousness. Righteousness can only come from One who understands how all things work.
That’s not evidence. It’s just restating the nature of the "phenomena", and then taking a wild faith based leap that God designed it (without evidence).
I support your faith, but not your desire to teach it to my kids in public school as a science. Keep it in social studies.
Evolution on the other hand is a significantly supported and pear reviewed body of theories and facts that deserves recognition as a scientific theory supported by evidence.
As opposed to a brow-beating, evolution-believing aristocracy?
Not only is "Intelligent Design Theory" not "entirely scientific", but it doesn't even rise to the level of a "theory" in the scientific sense at all. It is, at best, a non-scientific postulate. And at worst, it's propaganda in the Michael Moore mold.
The evidence and cross-examination in the Dover court case has made that abundantly clear, even to those who weren't already aware of it.
Then explain this to me, bondserv. At the Dover School Board trial, several members of the creationist school board have been shown in court testimony to have lied under oath in their depositions; and it appears they colluded with each other in advance to do so. On the other hand, the defense has been unable to impeach the integrity of any of the plaintiffs.
If these particular creationists have a moral compass, they apparently seem to think the needle points south.
ID claims that it is more rational for the bacterial flagellum to have been designed than evolved. The evidence is presents includes irreducible complexity.that parts can't reduced without destroying function; specified complexity, that the DNA which makes the flagellum work is complex and specified hence no scientific mechanism can account for it; and the inference of design, that the design of a event can be inferred if it meets certain objective criteria.
Now, where is the physical evidence that it evolved?
The Flagellum Unspun - The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"
The Flagellum Unspun - The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"
This is neither evidence or proof. ID has not proved that the flagellum *must* have been designed; even a quick search on google shows that there's lots of ongoing research examining the subject, with lots of possibilities. Have they found a conclusive mechanism for it's creation? No. Is there reason to think it's physically impossible? No.
And that's the basic problem with ID: proving an impossibility is very hard. And this supposed "list of objective design criteria" is anything but objective or rigorous. It always boils down to 'I can't figure it out, so it must be designed'. Feh.
This is another reason I am not a big proponent of ID. God is a perfect gentleman. He doesn't try to force anyone to believe in Him. Persuasion is His preferred method. Forcing schools to teach about an intelligent designer makes the real Designer appear unconvincing.
Quick question: What is the purpose of the TTSS? If the flagellum did evolved from TTSS does that disprove evolution?
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.