Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design case decided - Dover, Pennsylvania, School Board loses [Fox News Alert]
Fox News | 12/20/05

Posted on 12/20/2005 7:54:38 AM PST by snarks_when_bored

Fox News alert a few minutes ago says the Dover School Board lost their bid to have Intelligent Design introduced into high school biology classes. The federal judge ruled that their case was based on the premise that Darwin's Theory of Evolution was incompatible with religion, and that this premise is false.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: biology; creation; crevolist; dover; education; evolution; intelligentdesign; keywordpolice; ruling; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 3,381-3,391 next last
To: CarolinaGuitarman; Anti-MSM
It's not possible to know. Scientists are humble enough to say they simply don't know.

Actually, that's the part of it we do know. The starting energy of the Big Bang was zero, and has never changed since. The gravitational fields of the universe have negative energy, just as the matter has positive energy, and as far as we can measure, their sums cancel to many decimal places.

241 posted on 12/20/2005 9:18:22 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage
Miller and Urey origin of life needs no procreator - it was a random event (even though their work has been proven to be totally false).

What was the purpose of Miller and Urey's experiment?

242 posted on 12/20/2005 9:18:28 AM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Anti-MSM
What was the very first thing under the evolution theory and how did it come into existence?

The origin of life has nothing to do with Evolution. You can fully teach Evolutionary theory in schools without mentioning the origin of life at all. Darwin himself in his entire life only addressed the subject of the origin of life in a couple of sentences in a private letter where he speculated on it; he didn't have a word on it in anything he officially published.

The overwhelming majority of FR Creationists spend their time attacking theories of abiogenesis (life from non-life) and actually no time attacking evolution at all, ironically, because they don't even know what evolution is.

And no matter how much I point the above out, it continues, so they're obviously too dense to recognize reality.

243 posted on 12/20/2005 9:18:32 AM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1
Accidents happen. Humanity and matter itself were big ones.

LOL! Well, there are a few people that make me wonder if that's true sometimes!

244 posted on 12/20/2005 9:18:59 AM PST by Anti-MSM (Conservatives wish 9/11 never happened-liberals pretend it didn't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: plewis1250
"Where is your "missing link"?"

This isn't a scientific question. There is no *one* missing link.

"Where is a SINGLE cross species, species? No where."

We have observed populations speciate.

"It is a theory, just as you claim creationism is."

No, creationism is a belief. Evolution is a scientific theory. You never heard me say creationism was a theory.

"Yet your intolerance prohibits your mind from being opened to the truth, as I see it. - plewis1250"

No, I just don't want religion taught as science. Creationism is a religious belief.
245 posted on 12/20/2005 9:20:17 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
The origin of life has nothing to do with Evolution.

If the theory of evolution is about how creatures evolved, the question becomes what they evolved from.

246 posted on 12/20/2005 9:20:37 AM PST by Anti-MSM (Conservatives wish 9/11 never happened-liberals pretend it didn't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
The overwhelming majority of FR Creationists spend their time attacking theories of abiogenesis (life from non-life) and actually no time attacking evolution at all

That shouldn't surprise us. After all, when you have an argument so weak, the only tactic you have is attacking a straw man.

Had they a better argument, they wouldn't have to resort to such nonsense. That they do so speaks volumes.

247 posted on 12/20/2005 9:20:58 AM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Anti-MSM

"At least they know when God has them beat!"

There is no way to know if God exists.


248 posted on 12/20/2005 9:21:19 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Anti-MSM
"If the theory of evolution is about how creatures evolved, the question becomes what they evolved from."

The question is not relevant to the theory. Abiogenesis is the theory that deals with the origins of life. They are separate fields.
249 posted on 12/20/2005 9:23:07 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
A clear violation of the establishment cause has been prevented.

Keep mythology and religion out of the hard sciences. Its bad enough that we have the watermelons on the left pushing "Global Warming."

As for you members of the Boobouisie who think that this was a case of "judicial tyranny," let me just remind you that this judge did you all a favor. The existence of a "creator" just doesn't stand up under the scientific method.

250 posted on 12/20/2005 9:23:14 AM PST by Clemenza (Smartest words ever written by a Communist: "Show me the way to the next Whiskey Bar")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored; PatrickHenry; Physicist
Since the local voters rejected the school board what possible reason do you have to applaud this federal inquisition.
Science that does not rely solely on it's persuasiveness is not science at all. It's doctrine to be protected from "denigration" by courts. Beside ignoring the possible effect of this ruling on the evolution of scientific debate in this country, you ignore it's certain effect on the evolution of our law.

"The Dover School Board, a political entity, decided that it was going to intervene in science classrooms and determine what will be taught there."

An electerd school board determining a curriculum? Heaven forbid!

And if Heaven isn't powerful enough get a federal court to forbid it!

251 posted on 12/20/2005 9:23:32 AM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Anti-MSM
If the theory of evolution is about how creatures evolved, the question becomes what they evolved from.

And that question is the very interesting field of abiogenesis, filled with many theories, and obviously, since the origin of life was over 3 billion years ago, determining which of them is correct will be quite difficult as the surviving evidence of life at that time is spotty.

There's really no need to teach anything about abiogenesis in High School or Junior High given the uncertainty over it and the complexity of discussing it, and I'd have no problem with the whole topic being ignored. However, evolution is a different story.

252 posted on 12/20/2005 9:24:13 AM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: laxin4him

You mean to tell me Zeus doesnt hurl lightning bolts down from Mt. Olympus?


253 posted on 12/20/2005 9:24:28 AM PST by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: plewis1250
Where is your "missing link"?

You know how motion pictures work. Lots of individual picture frames, projected rapidly. The "missing link" is in the same place as the missing images between those in the movie film. They're gone.

But just like you don't need an infinite number of movie images to demonstrate that they record motion and reality, we don't need an infinite number of historical data to know that species have changed over time. We're adding new intermediate chunks of data every day, but we will never have every individual that ever lived, because they're gone.

It is a theory, just as you claim creationism is.

Read up on what a scientific "theory" is. You don't understand what it is.

254 posted on 12/20/2005 9:25:04 AM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: saganite
Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Constitution does prevent the government from PREVENTING the free exercise of religion. Banning it from the public arena, including public schools is unconstitutional. There is no such thing as a wall of separation or the guarantee of separation of church and state. Allowing it is not establishing it. So the Constitution does address the practice of religion in PUBLIC schools. It allows it. It doesn't relegate it to only church as if people who believe in some sort of god are second class citizens.

255 posted on 12/20/2005 9:25:42 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Judge Jones is a George W. Bush appointee. The tyranny was the school board's.

This is sarcasm right?
256 posted on 12/20/2005 9:26:00 AM PST by The Lumster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
Crusheroonie! If there was anything that I was hoping for that isn't in there, I can't think of it just now.
257 posted on 12/20/2005 9:26:12 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

A curriculum ought to be decided in consultation with the teachers who implement it. To my knowledge, not a single biology teacher subject to the jurisdiction of the Dover School Board supported the mandate to introduce Intelligent Design into their biology classes. If I'm mistaken, please mention a name.


258 posted on 12/20/2005 9:26:28 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
And having read this, surely ID probably DOES deserve mention in a biology class, and it should be given all the time it is due, say, 1 to 5 minutes, and then left at that.

I'm all for doing one or two days in some science class somewhere along the way on "How to spot crackpot science."

259 posted on 12/20/2005 9:27:35 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
The question is not relevant to the theory. Abiogenesis is the theory that deals with the origins of life. They are separate fields.

Of course it's not, because the theory is disproven once you go back to the first living organism. It's hard to explain how the first living organism evolved from nothing.

260 posted on 12/20/2005 9:28:40 AM PST by Anti-MSM (Conservatives wish 9/11 never happened-liberals pretend it didn't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 3,381-3,391 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
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson