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.

[Lurking Libertarian]

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

...who remained a Theistic evolutionist after he became a Christian.

[Jeff Head]

A theory is a theory...unproven on the macro, shown to apply in a specific environemnt. It implies a higher law covering the macro.

Irrespective, my point stands. No huffing or puffing about it. Just fact. A theory is, by definition, unproven. No amount of rationalization will change that until the proof is in.

[NavVet]

In other words accept our theory as fact and don't dare to point out any of the glaring holes in our theory or we'll call you "The American Taliban" "Jesus Freaks" or worse.

The only reason that evolution is the one area of science where debate can not be allowed is that one possible explanation for the many flaws in the theory is that of divine creation. And if you give those damn Christians an inch, they'll take a mile.

[Shadowfax]

"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."

Don't be absurd. The difference between the two is obvious. Micro-evolution (or adaptation) are changes within species. Macro-evolution is change that results in one species begetting another, more complex species. The former is an accepted scientific principle. It meets all the standards of the scientific method. The latter does not. It is completely unproven. It cannot be observed or reproduced. It also is not predictive in nature. Macro-evolution, which is at the heart of evolutionary thinking, is a total violation of the scientific method.

If evolutionary scientists see no difference between the two, you have pointed out why a) creation scientists are more rigorous in their thinking and b) why evolutionary scientists don't realize that the "theory" they are championing is total crap.

[Protagoras]

Similar to the Theory of Relativity, of course.

Similar, yes.

[narby]

Look at the Grand Canyon.

Been there, hiked that.

Anyone who has done so and still believes in a 6000 year old earth is blind. Which demonstrates that Genesis isn't literal history, and if it isn't then there's no Biblical reason to think that evolution isn't true either.

The subject here is evolution, and I accept the fact that it occurred, and resulted in humans. Whether God did this thing is not covered by science. Those are two entirely separate questions, and religious people need to make a truce with science (as the Catholics, finally, have done), because it isn't going away.

[polymuser]

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

Yes, as I recall, Lewis didn't exclude evolution from being a working part (but not the source) of God's created life. Many Christians don't. I don't. But, IMO, descended/adaptated >> new lifeform is a leap of faith (with gapping holes in fossil evidence).

[latina4dubya]

our children may yet grow up able to compete with other scientific minds in the world.

uh--yeah... that's exactly what our government schools prepare are children to do... dream on!

this ruling actually does not bother me... as a homeschooler, i look forward to the next 20-30 years... i cannot wait to see the impact my boys and their homeschooled friends are going to have on this nation...

[Smogger]

While natural scientists maybe are methodological naturalist, most are on ontological naturalists, which is to say that they are aethiest. Regardless, the discussion of the origin of life is inevitable a religious/philisopical discussion since a scientist can no more observe the the beginning of the universe than can a priest.

Origin science is not operational science. You can't observe something that by it's nature will only happen once.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Why do you assume creation is a myth?

Creation isn't a myth. We are obviously here.

The stories told about creation are myths. And they're not science. The science has a way to go as well.

[Smogger]

huh?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Macro-evolution is change that results in one species begetting another, more complex species."

There is nothing to say that the new species will be *more complex* than the parent species. All that matters is that the individuals of the new species are adapted to the environment they inhabit.

" It cannot be observed or reproduced."

Speciation has already been observed. And there is overwhelming indirect evidence for the common descent of all life.

[xzins]

God created hurricane Katrina to. Right?

God also created the process by which hurricanes form at regular times and in regular ways.

It is always an open prospect that God wants you to think about any number of things when these powerful storms devastate people and places....or nothing at all.

If nothing else, then just your own mortality. Do you realize that, if you read a book a week, you probably have little more than 2500 books left to read in your life? And then you're dust.

[mlc9852]

So you just mean that saying God was the creator is the myth?

[narby]

Unlike you however, they do not believe we all came from pond scum.

You don't think God created pond scum? You have something against God's fine creation of fresh water life?

I think your pride in being human rather than a distant relative of pond scum is getting in the way here.

[Protagoras]

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

I disagree with that explanation. I suspect many evolutionists would as well.

So no, evolution is not compatible.

Your opinion is noted.

An argument could be made for micro and creationism going hand in hand, but not macro. Not the big bang.

Between the two of us, only one brought up the big bang theory, and it wasn't me. It is also, IMO, irrelevant to my point.

[xzins]

I don't know where others got so attached to it, but I picked it up in college....Univ of Cincinnati, '79.

[rootkidslim]

You have convinced me! I'm going out right now to buy myself a plastic Jesus for my dashboard. The "prideful" have "been laid low" just like it says in your infallible book.

Ooops!

It was those"scientific eggheads" who came up with the "theory" of a round Earth. If it was up to your infallible book and religious leaders, you would be in prison for asserting that the Earth is round!

[polymuser]

But the question was about the science of evolution.

Understood. God created science.

[bobdsmith]

A theory is, by definition, unproven.

So is a law