Federal lawsuit could follow board vote [Evolution in Kansas & Dover]

Lawrence Journal-World [Kansas] ^ | 08 November 2005 | Joel Mathis

[Deadshot Drifter]

Patrick Henry, please add me to the Crevo ping list.

[From many - one.]

The lights may be going out.

but...
One gutsy teacher I saw on a newscast (sorry, channel surfing so I'm not sure of where) said she'd use ID to show what's wrong with non-science. Hope she keeps her job.

[ml1954]

Dorothy was wrong. Kansas is Oz.

[VadeRetro]

Time was only pretending to forget those people, like someone pretending to forget a kitten at a rest stop.

[RogueIsland]

Teach the controversy!

Sure, why not. After all, "the firmament goes a long way towards explaining some of the mysteries of modern science."

[VadeRetro]

I can't tell if Prof. Irwin Corey wrote that stuff or they were just copying him.

[connectthedots]

Behe does not say that he accepts universal common descent in that statement.

Furthermore, it seems to me that Behe is arguing that whether one believes in common descent or not, ID is a better explanation for life as it exists today. IOW, even accepting the notion of common descent, ID is still valid.

Were it otherwise, he would be well within the mainstream of Darwinian evolution.

Keep in mind that the main topic of the statement, if it is in answer to a question, is the fossil record and what it means.

I think you may be reading something additional into his statement that isn't there. It may also be possible that I have done the same, even if my comments are my attempt to construe all he has said to be consistent as a whole.

[connectthedots]

Evidently not very carefully, if it comes as a shock to you that Behe endorses an old earth and universal common descent. And your memory seems to be going too, as I have cited the appropriate sentences in DBB to you before.

I would be very interested in a citation where Behe endorses 'universal common descent'. I don't think he has.

I believe he has stated words to the effect that ID does not require one to take a position on 'common descent', which is quite different from 'universal common descent'. I think pretty much the same could be said about the age of the Earth.

I also recall reading somewhere that Behe believes that the 'intelligent designer' is God.

[connectthedots]

And your memory seems to be going too, as I have cited the appropriate sentences in DBB to you before.

In that cae, you should have little trouble in citing the page numbers.

[Doctor Stochastic]

They filed Last Thursday, but made it look like Next Thursday.

[PatrickHenry]

I think I'm gonna have to start a new thread for this.

[PatrickHenry]

Maybe not. This thread seems appropriate. Here's another article:
Kansas school board approves science standards casting doubt on evolution.

[js1138]

Behe does not say that he accepts universal common descent in that statement.

Since I've given you three opportunities to distinguish the various gradation of common descent, I'm going to have to assume you made it up. Behe didn't see ant reason to hedge, nor does Denton.

[connectthedots]

If you understood the Lemon test, you would likely think it to be quite silly.

[ml1954]

Or http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1518364/posts

[Virginia-American]

...and no evidence ever found has in any way undermined special creation. ...

Exactly. Could you please give an example of evidence, which, if found, would falsify creationism.

For example, a rabbit's fossil found in Cambrian rock, or a mutation that was common to gorillas and chimps but not people, would tend to undermine standard biology.

But I can't think of anything that would undermine creationism; can you?

If, in fact, there is nothing that could undermine it, then it's a vacuous "theory".

[connectthedots]

Try googling 'common descent' and 'universal common descent'. You get quite a few hits. There is a significant difference in the two.

[ml1954]

If you understood the Lemon test, you would likely think it to be quite silly.

Your assumption of my ignorance is noted.

[connectthedots]

Try googling 'common descent' and 'universal common descent'. You get quite a few hits. There is a significant difference in the two.

[ModernDayCato]

Wow...skepticism, sarcasm and refutation. Sounds like SCIENCE used to be, rather than simply the defense of the status quo without regard for any other theories.

Actually, I was bored this morning as I typed my first response, but I'm more amused now.

I believe in intelligent design, and I believe in God. One of us will be right some day. If it's you, nothing happens. If it's me, you're all f--ked, which is what is making me laugh right now.