Intelligent Design case decided - Dover, Pennsylvania, School Board loses [Fox News Alert]

Fox News | 12/20/05

[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.

[pollywog]

Well next ya know we will be taking the " In GOD WE TRUST" off the coin and then to complete the evil assignment, the " Endowed by our CREATOR" will be wiped clean from the Declaration of Independence!!!
But don't fear all you libs........God WILL HAVE THE FINAL SAY.......and that CREATOR is going to RETURN.......that you can COUNT ON!!!!

[plewis1250]

Evolution explains the start of the universe as being a "big bang"... out of nothingness matter was... created? Formed into existence... there ya go, that’s what they say.
This is in total contradiction to every major monotheistic religion on this planet. Every one of them has a god of some sort creating the universe (hence, that makes them god by definition)
So no, evolution is not compatible.

Microevolution, is what you are referring to as the "tool God uses to achieve his ends", where as the evolution that the others on this thread are advocating is macroevolution which encompasses the big bang theory and what not. An argument could be made for micro and creationism going hand in hand, but not macro. Not the big bang.

- plewis1250

[rootkidslim]

"I AM" sounds like he has an ego problem, and I have news for you, I'm mocking him right now. You can't see it because I don't have a web cam, but I AM mocking him! I'll keep you updated with lightning bolt reports. Seriously, the image of "God" you construct is a self absorbed, self centered, demanding and arrogant being, hardly a model for enlightened human behavior. How can you worship such a ill tempered god? You should consider a nice Chinese House God like the one I have.

[narby]

I think I figured out Buchanan is an idiot around 1991. For sure, he's out of his depth in a mud puddle writing about the state of the evidence for evolution.

Buchanan is a carcature of a conservative, that's why they keep him around at CNN. So they can laugh, and think they're smarter than us.

[unlearner]

"The constitution doesn't say anything about practicing your religion in a public school."

The Constitution does not talk about public school. Period.

It does however forbid limiting the free exercise of religion. It also protects religious freedom by limiting the federal government from making one religion the official state religion.

"I don't believe this judge said you can't go to the church of your choice and worship any way you choose. That's what the separation of church and state is all about, not teaching religious 'theories' in science class."

This judge threw out ID because the proponents were religious. He called them liars for being religious and then giving nonreligious reasons for including ID in the curriculum.

According to this judge, religious motivations are enough to exclude a person from public education and politics.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Evolution explains the start of the universe as being a "big bang"..."

Lie. You know better; the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution.

[No Blue States]

Faith, a requirement of God for salvation is understandably in short supply among most scientific eggheads.
If would hurt their pride to even consider the possibility that they actually do not know it all.

Learning the world was round must have been painful.

[Protagoras]

But they are here, so it does matter.

Only to those who choose to send their children to the government indoctrination centers. I declined that option for the most part.

Alternately, parents can find out precisely what is being taught to their children and correct the misinformation as they see fit. I have spent considerable time in my life fulfilling my obligation as a parent to "unteach" my children some of the BS they were being propagandized into believing.

[js1138]

Or read C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity", by the atheist turned Christian.

It's interesting that Lewis accepted the fact of evolution, that is common descent.

[Smogger]

It's methodological naturalism, and it is a necessity for ALL science. NO scientific theory deals with morals and values. Those are questions that are properly OUTSIDE of science.

Materialistic/methodological? Naturalism is a philisophical point of view and it's adherents regard religion as the enemy. I suggest you google "naturalism," but you can start with Naturalism.org. It's adherents believe among other things that science lays claim to an exclusive approach to knowledge, and that people do NOT have free will, as we are merely a collection of atoms at the mercy of various physical influences (biological, physical, environmental.)

[polymuser]

The laws of nature don't operate randomly.

How did the laws of nature come about?

[narby]

In case you didn't notice, as far as science is concerned the judge does not leave room for "faithful people who accept evolution."

Huh?

You mean faithful people who accept evolution aren't allowed in science classes?

[truthchaser]

Intelligent design doesn't belong in science classes.

I plead ignorance on many of the points surrounding this issue, but I must ask: If a discussion of Intelligent Design were to focus say on the various fantastically fine-tuned cosmological constants, ratios, and initial conditions required to support a universe and life as we know it... isn't this science? We can certainly find plenty of books on this topic in the "Cosmology" and "Science" sections of the bookstore. Hasn't this always been the main segue into Designer Universe/ID?

[xzins]

Their motives have absolutely nothing to do with the strengths or weaknesses of ID theory.

For example, just because General Dynamics (Discovery Institute) can use technological advances made by NASA (ID) doesn't mean that NASA exists to advance General Dynamics.

[plewis1250]

That is not a lie. You know that the big bang theory is taught as "scientific fact" right along with evolution. It is the catalyst for the beginning of evolution.
- plewis1250

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Materialistic/methodological?"

Yes, words have meanings, at least to us.

"Naturalism is a philisophical point of view and it's adherents regard religion as the enemy."

Your paranoia is showing.

"It's adherents believe among other things that science lays claim to an exclusive approach to knowledge, and that people do NOT have free will, as we are merely a collection of atoms at the mercy of various physical influences (biological, physical, environmental.)"

It says no such thing.

[Antonello]

>"When "creation scientists" describe the mechanism that prevents so called "micro" evolution from continuing on to become "macro" evolution, let me know."

When evolutionary scientists prove the mechanism that allows micro-evolution to continue on to become macro-evolution, you let us know. The burden of such proofs is on the proponents of the theory. At least, it is under sound scientific principles. Something that evolutionists seem to struggle with.

The idea of 'micro' and 'macro' evolution is a creation scientist construct. Evolutionary scientists see no distinction between the two. If you want them to recognize that there is a reason to accept the difference, then demonstrate what barrier separates the two.

[ThinkDifferent]

Isn't it just a tad "dogmatic" to assert that God is not, and cannot be, the object or subject of science?

No more than it's dogmatic to assert that a polygon with 5 sides isn't a square. ID could be 100% correct, and it still wouldn't be scientific. If you like, you can take this as an illustration of the limitations of science.

[UWconservative]

"Or read C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity", by the atheist turned Christian. I, like him, find it much harder to believe randomness led to our universe's complexities, as opposed to creation."

I don't see how your or CS Lewis' perception of the universe changes the actual nature of the universe. What you/Lewis believe is irrelevant to reality. I'm sure people had a hard time believing the Earth is round, not flat.

[cogitator]

Evolution should be referred to correctly in the government schools. As a theory.

Similar to the Theory of Relativity, of course.