Posted on 11/22/2005 12:44:07 PM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
THE first court trial over the theory of intelligent design is now over, with a ruling expected by the end of the year. What sparked the legal controversy? Before providing two weeks of training in modern evolutionary theory, the Dover, Pa., School District briefly informed students that if they wanted to learn about an alternative theory of biological origins, intelligent design, they could read a book about it in the school library.
In short order, the School District was dragged into court by a group insisting the school policy constituted an establishment of religion, this despite the fact that the unmentionable book bases its argument on strictly scientific evidence, without appealing to religious authority or attempting to identify the source of design.
The lawsuit is only the latest in a series of attempts to silence the growing controversy over contemporary Darwinian theory.
For instance, after The New York Times ran a series on Darwinism and design recently, prominent Darwinist Web sites excoriated the newspaper for even covering intelligent design, insulting its proponents with terms like Medievalist, Flat-Earther and "American Taliban."
University of Minnesota biologist P.Z. Myers argues that Darwinists should take an even harder line against their opponents: "Our only problem is that we aren't martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough," he wrote. "The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians."
This month, NPR reported on behavior seemingly right out of the P.Z. Myers playbook.
The most prominent victim in the story was Richard Sternberg, a scientist with two Ph.D.s in evolutionary biology and former editor of a journal published out of the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History. He sent out for peer review, then published, a paper arguing that intelligent design was the best explanation for the geologically sudden appearance of new animal forms 530 million years ago.
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel reported that Sternberg's colleagues immediately went on the attack, stripping Sternberg of his master key and access to research materials, spreading rumors that he wasn't really a scientist and, after determining that they didn't want to make a martyr out of him by firing him, deliberately creating a hostile work environment in the hope of driving him from the Smithsonian.
The NPR story appalled even die-hard skeptics of intelligent design, people like heavyweight blogger and law professor Glenn Reynolds, who referred to the Smithsonian's tactics as "scientific McCarthyism."
Also this month, the Kansas Board of Education adopted a policy to teach students the strengths and weaknesses of modern evolutionary theory. Darwinists responded by insisting that there are no weaknesses, that it's a plot to establish a national theocracy — despite the fact that the weaknesses that will be taught come right out of the peer-reviewed, mainstream scientific literature.
One cause for their insecurity may be the theory's largely metaphysical foundations. As evolutionary biologist A.S. Wilkins conceded, "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."
And in the September issue of The Scientist, National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell argued that his extensive investigations into the matter corroborated Wilkins' view. Biologist Roland Hirsch, a program manager in the U.S. Office of Biological and Environmental Research, goes even further, noting that Darwinism has made a series of incorrect predictions, later refashioning the paradigm to fit the results.
How different from scientific models that lead to things like microprocessors and satellites. Modern evolutionary theory is less a cornerstone and more the busybody aunt — into everyone's business and, all the while, very much insecure about her place in the home.
Moreover, a growing list of some 450 Ph.D. scientists are openly skeptical of Darwin's theory, and a recent poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute found that only 40 percent of medical doctors accept Darwinism's idea that humans evolved strictly through unguided, material processes.
Increasingly, the Darwinists' response is to try to shut down debate, but their attempts are as ineffectual as they are misguided. When leaders in Colonial America attempted to ban certain books, people rushed out to buy them. It's the "Banned in Boston" syndrome.
Today, suppression of dissent remains the tactic least likely to succeed in the United States. The more the Darwinists try to prohibit discussion of intelligent design, the more they pique the curiosity of students, parents and the general public.
Ever notice how the anti-evolutionists have nothing to add to these discussions in the way of evidence or research, but are very fond of spewing long bigoted tirades against people who actually understand science?
Now, now, Ichne... anyone that can string random words together to simulate a sentence can't be a complete dolt.
I don't know which meaningless phrase is funnier -- "deolutionary" or "decivilizing narcissism."
First of all, there is no "darwinism" and if there was it would be capitalized.
You'll get "equal time" when you have "equal evidence". Get *THAT*?
Yes I get that crystal clear. ID has a way to go to match up with fossils and DNA and the host of other evidence directly supporting Natural Selection. When ID has "equal evidence" it deserves equal time. That is not the case here in late 2005.
In the scientific world credibility is gained through evidence, experimentation, and peer review. Please state your evidence, experimentation, and/or peer review of the previous ID "science". On it's own merits, ID has no credibility as a scientific theory whatsoever.
In the scientific world credibility is gained through evidence, experimentation, and peer review. Please state your evidence, experimentation, and/or peer review of the previous ID "science". On it's own merits, ID has no credibility as a scientific theory whatsoever. I'm not "blocking the aisle". I'm not defensive or paranoid about Natural Selection. I'm merely asking, "Why you demand to bring the supernatural into a science classroom?"
BTW: I'm going to start a lawsuit to throw out the "Theory of Gravity" and substitute it with the "Angels push things down to keep it from drifting up into heaven theory". Should that get as much space in the "aisle" as ID?
BTW: I'm going to start a lawsuit to throw out the "Theory of Gravity" and substitute it with the "Angels push things down to keep it from drifting up into heaven theory". Should that get as much space in the "aisle" as ID?
The Theory Of Intelligent Falling could also be offered as an alternative.
Ask your leadership. They know.
I don’t know - Try it…
"BTW: I'm going to start a lawsuit to throw out the "Theory of Gravity" and substitute it with the "Angels push things down to keep it from drifting up into heaven theory". Should that get as much space in the "aisle" as ID?"
There is no gravity- the earth sucks.
"You don't know what you don't know...lots of threads for many years before 2004."
I know what I DO know, and that is that you're completely wrong.
And, let's say that you are right, that we all ignore out of hand all arguments from creationist websites and don't even attempt to answer them (this is nonsense, and I've been here long enough to know (and I lurked for a few years before I signed up), but I'll play along for the sake of argument).
I said this,
"It doesn't matter if the site is biased; what matters is the substance of the arguments put forth. Creationist sites are equally biased against evolution."
Of this exact statement you said,
"I happen to agree with you, at least the point you made that I quoted here."
For you to say that, and when you came here and said,
"Your source is biased, thus, totally disqualified."
makes you a hypocrite. It shouldn't matter if you think that WE dismiss creationist sites(and their arguments) out of hand; why are you condemning us for something you yourself have done?
"Your source is biased, thus, totally disqualified."
We won't forget you said that.
"Ask your leadership. They know."
Second time; I have no *leadership*.
a) Both creation and evolution websites are credible and can equally be used as qualified reference sites
*or*
b) Only the pro-evolution sites are credible and can be used as qualified reference sites
Your leadership wants to know how you vote...
Outstanding work!
Hey, can I still ping ?
Ogre, darwinists need to grow up and stop wetting their pants over Intelligent Design. Supernatural ID belongs in any classroom where "Truth" in the origins of man is being persued. Why are darwinists so frightened of allowing competing views to be explored. Doesn't it bother you, make you feel a little uneasy that darwinists will even go to the extreme of trying to have teachers and/or administrators fired for attempting to introduce ID concepts to students? What is the matter with you people? You try to "morph" a boneheaded, "band aided" theory into a legitimate field of science and then claim to have an exclusive grip on wisdom, claim that the Genesis account of Creation is mythology.
St Paul,in his epistle to the Romans (Rom 1:22) speaking of man down through the ages states: "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and...". Ogre, do you really believe that a foolish bunch of delusional darwinist pseudo scientists can outsmart God and veto the Genesis account?
Anti-QuantumQuack Sarcasm Torpedo ARMED. FIRE!!
Yikes. After you've extracted the energy, do the various quantum mechanical operators suddenly start commuting?
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.