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 ... 321-340, 341-360, 361-380 ... 3,381-3,391 next last
To: gdani
I think recent photos of Russian boxer Nikolay Valuev are proof of common descent.......
341
posted on
12/20/2005 10:00:56 AM PST
by
gdani
(How does Intelligent Design explain male nipples?)
To: wolf24
Or, could you direct me to a source that describes these things? Thanks in advance.Read "The Beak of the Finch" by Jonathan Weiner, for starters.
To: saganite
The Constitution doesn't say anything about public schools, or the separatioon of Church and State either.
343
posted on
12/20/2005 10:01:25 AM PST
by
Jeff Head
(www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
To: mrsmith
Since the local voters rejected the school board what possible reason do you have to applaud this federal inquisition. Because a syndicate has mobilized to peddle this shamanism in schools all over the country.
Science that does not rely solely on it's persuasiveness is not science at all.
True, but scientists are the only relevant audience for that persuasion.
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.
It will not affect scientific debate one jot or tittle, since that has never been conducted in public schools. The debate regarding evolution is long, long over. The only matter remaining is to teach the result of that debate to the public.
As for its effect on the law, that was settled over 200 years ago. Schools are not churches, end of story.
To: Smogger
"Materialistic Naturalism asserts that matter is the only reality, and that all the laws of the universe are reducible to mechanical laws."
The position of science is called methodological naturalism.
345
posted on
12/20/2005 10:01:55 AM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
To: CarolinaGuitarman
346
posted on
12/20/2005 10:02:15 AM PST
by
Protagoras
(Many people teach their children that Jesus is story character but Santa Claus is real.)
To: laxin4him
Uh...if it's a theory, it is, by definition, not proven.
347
posted on
12/20/2005 10:02:28 AM PST
by
Jeff Head
(www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
To: snarks_when_bored
348
posted on
12/20/2005 10:02:56 AM PST
by
facedown
(Armed in the Heartland)
To: CarolinaGuitarman; plewis1250
"This is a political forum, so words do not have to conform to "scientific standards"..."
Funny, that's just what the school board said about science classes and ID.
That's a shocking admission. Thank you for your honesty.
It's a sad state of affairs when someone who calls himself a conservative actually admits that he wants political considerations to take precedence over accuracy in science. That's why I've been saying that ID is nothing more than warmed-over PC - trying to make science conform to a political agenda, regardless of the scientific merits of the agenda.
349
posted on
12/20/2005 10:02:58 AM PST
by
highball
("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
You don't have a clue as to what ID really is, do you? What ID pretends to be, and what it actually is, are two entirely different things. The testimony of the trial, when "Christians" got on the stand and lied under oath about what they had said in their School Board meetings, demonstrated all I need to know about ID and it's proponents.
350
posted on
12/20/2005 10:03:17 AM PST
by
narby
(Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
To: CarolinaGuitarman
90% of the country identifies themselves as "Christians", of some sort. They have been spoon fed your theories all of their lives, so you are right, they do not all believe in creationism. Unlike you however, they do not believe we all came from pond scum. They believe in a god, which means they must believe something besides the pond scum theory. (That theory is based on a total LACK of a god of any sort)
- plewis1250
351
posted on
12/20/2005 10:03:19 AM PST
by
plewis1250
(Not taking this evolutionist agenda....)
To: CarolinaGuitarman
None of this would matter if government schools were abolished, as they should be.
352
posted on
12/20/2005 10:03:30 AM PST
by
Protagoras
(Many people teach their children that Jesus is story character but Santa Claus is real.)
To: highball
But when it comes to this particular dogma, many are happy to adopt it for themselves.Isn't it just a tad "dogmatic" to assert that God is not, and cannot be, the object or subject of science?
To: xzins; js1138
I seem to have responded to you on the wrong thread. It would be easier to discuss this on the thread rather than on freepmail. At first I had no idea what you were referring to.
My question remains. How does this case get to the Supreme Court?
354
posted on
12/20/2005 10:03:43 AM PST
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: Fester Chugabrew
Isn't it just a tad "dogmatic" to assert that God is not, and cannot be, the object or subject of science? No.
355
posted on
12/20/2005 10:04:30 AM PST
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: highball
356
posted on
12/20/2005 10:04:41 AM PST
by
plewis1250
(Not taking this evolutionist agenda....)
To: CarolinaGuitarman
There is no way to know if God exists.The claim of certain ignorance entails a claim of omniscience, which is self-refuting.
Cordially,
357
posted on
12/20/2005 10:05:09 AM PST
by
Diamond
(Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
To: Alter Kaker
Because evolution is the only scientificly proven "theory" about the existence ofthe universe. Incorrect. A theory, by definition, is not proven.
358
posted on
12/20/2005 10:05:13 AM PST
by
Jeff Head
(www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
To: Protagoras
359
posted on
12/20/2005 10:05:21 AM PST
by
plewis1250
(Not taking this evolutionist agenda....)
To: plewis1250
"90% of the country identifies themselves as "Christians", of some sort."
So? Most evolutionists believe in God.
"Unlike you however, they do not believe we all came from pond scum. They believe in a god, which means they must believe something besides the pond scum theory. (That theory is based on a total LACK of a god of any sort)."
The majority of people who agree with evolution don't agree with you. They also believe in God.
BTW, abiogenesis theory says NOTHING about the existence of a deity, for or against. Nor do any other theories in science. :)
360
posted on
12/20/2005 10:05:38 AM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340, 341-360, 361-380 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson