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

Skip to comments.

Origin of board decision probed [Dover Evolution trial, 03 Nov]
York Daily Record [Penna] ^ | 03 November 2005 | MICHELLE STARR

Posted on 11/03/2005 11:39:36 AM PST by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-119 next last
To: js1138

That's what happens when you refuse to look at the data, man.


81 posted on 11/03/2005 2:21:05 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
And it's not because 88% of America is stupid. It's because evolutionists couldn't make a persuasive case if they had the entire GNP to spend doing it.

And about 40% of the population think that Bush lied about WMD but Bill Clinton didn't. Popular opinion is meaningless when people can be led around so easily by charismatic people speaking from podiums and televisions.

82 posted on 11/03/2005 2:27:29 PM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: All
Interesting item here, from Fox: Vatican Cardinal Says We Should Listen to Science. Excerpt:
Cardinal Paul Poupard, who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture (search), made the comments at a news conference on a Vatican project to help end the "mutual prejudice" between religion and science that has long bedeviled the Roman Catholic Church and is part of the evolution debate in the United States.

The Vatican project was inspired by Pope John Paul II's 1992 declaration that the church's 17th-century denunciation of Galileo (search) was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension." Galileo was condemned for supporting Nicolaus Copernicus' (search) discovery that the Earth revolved around the sun; church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe.

snip

"We know where scientific reason can end up by itself: the atomic bomb and the possibility of cloning human beings are fruit of a reason that wants to free itself from every ethical or religious link," he said.

"But we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism," he said.

snip

Poupard and others at the news conference were asked about the religion-science debate raging in the United States over evolution and "intelligent design."

Intelligent design's supporters argue that natural selection, an element of evolutionary theory, cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms.

Monsignor Gianfranco Basti, director of the Vatican project STOQ, or Science, Theology and Ontological Quest, reaffirmed John Paul's 1996 statement that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis."

"A hypothesis asks whether something is true or false," he said. "(Evolution) is more than a hypothesis because there is proof."


83 posted on 11/03/2005 2:31:17 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Reality is a harsh mistress. No rationality, no mercy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
I understand that some of the anti-science folks are at war with reality, but really, this is too rich!

LOL! Indeed.

84 posted on 11/03/2005 2:31:59 PM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

And they'd still be liberals if they could figure out how to meld "The State" with "God". Thus they aim at a Theocracy.


85 posted on 11/03/2005 2:36:12 PM PST by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
My suspicion is that if a nationwide quiz were taken, asking everyone to briefly describe the theory of evolution in a paragraph, less than 10% would be able to do so with any resemblance of accuracy.

The info I placed in this post might interest you (or might not). In any case, evolution is certainly not the only place where scientific literacy is lacking. Most of it seems to center around ignorance, not fanaticism. We must remember that only the most determined of creationists actually post anything about their opinions. I really don't think most people care, which is a scary thing in and of itself.

86 posted on 11/03/2005 2:58:09 PM PST by Quark2005 (Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

When the South Park folks eventually get around to making fun of the IDers, they'll have all their dialogue cut out (no pun intended) for them.


87 posted on 11/03/2005 3:11:36 PM PST by RightWingAtheist (Free the Crevo Three!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005

Politically, I think the ones that "really believe" are the scariest.

For example, everybody and their brother knew that Bill Clinton would sell his mother for a vote. Everything he did was calculated politically. John Kerry was cut fom the same cloth although trickier to pin down. But the most scary was Al Gore (Thank God we managed to dodge that bullet, barely) - he really believed his blather. He scared(s) the hell out of me.

When people don't know and don't seem to care it's generally because they don't feel threatened (again, politically). If this transfers to Crevo issues, I'm not sure.


88 posted on 11/03/2005 3:17:45 PM PST by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005

Keep in mind, most people don't care about creationists.

They are regarded as the kook fringe.


89 posted on 11/03/2005 3:23:57 PM PST by MonroeDNA (Look for the union label--on the bat crashing through your windshield!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Dataman; longshadow; VadeRetro; <1/1,000,000th%; PatrickHenry; Right Wing Professor; Ichneumon; ...

most people in America cannot accurately and distinctly define:
evidence, fact, observation, record, repeatable, accurate, precise, experiment, variable, science, know, think, feel, notion, guess, hypothesis, theory, falsification criterion, prediction, predictive value, et cetera ad nauseam.

in fine: Most Americans lack the basic understanding of science required to differentiate between a valid theory and a mystic dogma dressed up in a cheap lab coat.


90 posted on 11/03/2005 3:25:17 PM PST by King Prout (many accuse me of being overly literal... this would not be a problem if many were not under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
most people in America cannot accurately and distinctly define: evidence, fact, observation, record, repeatable, accurate, precise, experiment, variable, science, know, think, feel, notion, guess, hypothesis, theory, falsification criterion, prediction, predictive value, et cetera ad nauseam.

Everyone knows the definition of a theory. It's an assumption based on guesswork and presumed conjecture.

91 posted on 11/03/2005 3:57:48 PM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
And don't forget, when a theory gets proved it becomes a fact and then a Law, unlike Evolution, which is just a theory. Creationism is a valid scientific theory too.

And evolutionists hate God and religion, even though their ideology is just religion. Unlike Creationism, which is Science, not religion.

And, and... Einstein said "God doesn't play dice" so that settles it.

(sarcasm off)
92 posted on 11/03/2005 4:05:39 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith

sadly, your quip is a fairly accurate summation of the popular understanding of that word.


93 posted on 11/03/2005 4:06:18 PM PST by King Prout (many accuse me of being overly literal... this would not be a problem if many were not under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Einstein said "God doesn't play dice" so that settles it.

And I remember a man called Anthony Flew who said something once.

94 posted on 11/03/2005 4:10:22 PM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
That's a popular way of avoiding the extremely difficult and embarrassing task of having to explain the origin of matter or life. However, the non-existence of God requires a non-theistic explanation of the origin of matter and the origin of life.

The theory of evolution does not claim that there are no gods. You have been told this before, so there's no excuse for you to repeat this lie again.

When you claim that the "majority" of those who reject evolution understand it and try to justify this by redefining evolution into something that it isn't, you only expose your own dishonesty. But what should I expect when you're already known for your sheer dishonesty?
95 posted on 11/03/2005 4:11:11 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Dataman
"Har! Not on THESE threads! One dolt last night was mouth-foaming about "people who worship random selection."

I might worship it if I could figure out what the heck it's supposed to mean.

96 posted on 11/03/2005 4:29:09 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
most people in America cannot accurately and distinctly define: evidence, fact, observation, record, repeatable, accurate, precise, experiment, variable, science, know, think, feel, notion, guess, hypothesis, theory, falsification criterion, prediction, predictive value, et cetera ad nauseam.

I know the definition of "etc ad nauseum:" literally, it's "and so on till I get ill."

97 posted on 11/03/2005 4:36:17 PM PST by Junior (From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws

What would there basis be for appeal?

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think the perjurors are dumb enough to present their perjury to review by a higher court. But I could be wrong.

I think the DASD wants to go home and forget this ever happened.

98 posted on 11/03/2005 5:24:02 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dataman; MineralMan
The very first error almost every creationist makes is in believing that the TOE has anything whatever to do with the origins of the universe or the origins of the first lifeform on this planet. I've seen few who know that the TOE does not address either.

"That's a popular way of avoiding the extremely difficult and embarrassing task of having to explain the origin of matter or life. However, the non-existence of God requires a non-theistic explanation of the origin of matter and the origin of life. Or do you want to give God a foot in the door? Your buddies say you can't.

You are making a number of incorrect assumptions. One is that biological evolution, which is what we here have restricted ourselves to, can address abiogenesis, or cosmology. Biological evolution is restricted to living organisms on which natural evolution can operate. Abiogenesis (which is more an hypothesis than a theory at this point) and cosmology do not present any organisms for the mechanisms of biological evolution to operate on. The second erroneous assumption you make is that biological evolution is an attempt at proving the non-existence of God. Science can not address anything that does not present physically testable data. God is untestable. Therefore science can not and does not address God or his existence. Many creationist leaders have attempted to lump every science that uses the term 'evolution' together, despite the fact that the word is used differently by the non-biological sciences. It has been done simply to give creationism a handle with which to manipulate the minds of the faithful.

Based on that, I cannot see why anyone should pay any attention to creationism in the first place, since it is not arguing against anything real.

"But Mineral, you just disqualified yourself from criticizing creationism because you have demonstrated that you don't understand it. You said:

The 'un-real' that MM is talking about is the strawman version of evolution that the creationists here, and at a number of other forums I participate in, faithfully regurgitate. The creationist strawman is not in any sense real.

If those arguing the issue do not understand the theory in the first place, then whatever their argument is has no relevance.

"Have you not just discarded your own credibility?

Here you are making an erroneous assumption that we 'evos' are arguing against God and religion. This is not true, we are arguing against the misconceived, mutilated and ubiquitous misrepresentation of not only evolution but science in general. We do not need to know anything about creationism because we are attacking their arguments, arguments that we have thrust upon us every day. How could we not be experts in those arguments?

99 posted on 11/03/2005 5:25:47 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

100


100 posted on 11/03/2005 5:26:35 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Reality is a harsh mistress. No rationality, no mercy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-119 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