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.
That's too. And that's yes.
Is not God in control? Was God powerless to prevent the damage caused by Katrina? Is God impotent in the face of Mother Nature? Is Mother Nature capable of thwarting God's will? If so, then Mother Nature is God.
That would be operational science, because it can be observed. Origin science, by it's nature, cannot be observed.
Do you really want judges (read, lawyers) deciding what is and is not science? Heck. Even scientists and philosphers of science cannot establish agreed upon demarcation criteria for science.
Cordially,
Maybe I'm wrong, but every time I see "a priori", I think "IDer". Just like when I see the term "sustainable", I think "Liberal".
How come you guys like that word so much? Or is that just one person making all those posts?
This judge has done nothing to abridge your right to worship as you see fit. The fact that you believe this ruling abridges your right to practice your religion (in the public schools) proves that you believe that intelligent design is religious in nature.
My comment on this thread is that this case was so poorly presented that this is not the end of ID. It will simply learn from this how not to present in court.
So....I don't think this case will get to court.
I think this issue will eventually get to court.
Personally, though, I think the judge's decision to a priori group ID with fundamentalism was prejudicial and flawed.
No. I mean the notion of faithful people that God has anything to do with evolution cannot, and will not, be allowed in the science room or any of its textbooks - at least according to this judge and his cheerleaders.
I've read it, and I'm a committed Christian. But the question was about the science of evolution.
Honestly, how often does it have to be repeated that the Big Bang Theory and Evolutionary Theory have absolutely nothing to do with each another? Repeatedly conflating two unrelated theories from two entirely different branches of science certainly doesn't enhance one's credibility with anyone educated past first grade.
True. A lot of them anyway.
Dogmatism entails asserting as fact that which cannot be proven. As such mathematical statements regarding geometry do not qualify.
Some of the resulting discussion seems to be bringing out the hidden agendas. Well, not so well hidden after all, but discussion of the law is good for society. We should take a look beyond our own white picket fences once in a while.
and string theory.
True as far as it goes. I hope you will find time in your busy schedule to remind evolution critics that the motives of scientists also have no bearing on the value of their theories.
What makes ID special in this court case is the written record of the Discovery Instituter's use of ID to weaken the foundations of science. There is also the paper trail left by the authors of "Pandas and People" in which creationism was replaced by ID.
The real problem with ID is there is no there there. No research, no suggestions for research. If you are going to be science, you have to be in the field testing a hypothesis. ID has no hypothesis. Just a list of unexplained things. You aren't doing science by pointing out that some things are unexplained. You do science by seeking explanations.
I think its called genetics. Even though you can run through thousands of generations of fruit flies in a short time you still end up with fruit flies.
hahahahaha!
I have a 30-or-so year old book with the overly-ambitious title of "Teach yourself genetics". In this book there is a section on evolution and they do use the term micro and macro evolution, so I doubt it is really a creation science construct. Interestingly the book also uses the term mega-evolution to refer to evolution above the macro-evolution scale, although this term doesn't seem to be used any more.
My "intended" meaning is precisely what I wrote.
Both beliefs are thus far theory. However, it is my suspicion that you will find the proof to one quite earlier than you think. Actually, you may find out how it all works at the same time. :^}
,,,,,,,Or not.
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.