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.

[VadeRetro]

The gratuitous quote at the top of that post has nothing to do with Pat, of course. It's something left over in my paste buffer from earlier.

Post in haste, repent at leisure.

[unlearner]

"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."

Wrong. The judge ruled that the proponents were religiously motivated.

How would you feel if Christians who believe evolution is compatible with the Bible advocated teaching evolution in schools, but a judge said it cannot be taught because the proponents are religiously motivated?

ID is not a Christian doctrine. ID is a scientific hypothesis which is compatible with Biblical doctrine. The facts of evolution (not the general theory of common descent) are also compatible with Biblical doctrine.

ID could be compatible with pretty much any religion as well as atheism. The only thing ID is not compatible with is abiogenesis, which is not science.

ID does not contradict evolution. ID hypothesizes about the origin of life, not the origin of species.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"While natural scientists maybe are methodological naturalist, most are on ontological naturalists, which is to say that they are aethiest."

Not true.

"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."

You just jumped from the origins of life (abiogenesis) to the origins of the universe (The Big Bang Theory), neither of which is covered by the theory of evolution. As for their scientific standing though, indirect evidence can be as good as direct evidence if there is enough. Nobody has seen subatomic particles either.

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

Yes you can, you can observe it indirectly.

[10mm]

"Theories" are either supported or disproven by "Facts". Show me a sunflower with "This sunflower created by God - All rights reserved" encoded in it's DNA, then ID would have a scientific leg on which to stand.

If a theory were "proven", it wouldn't be a theory. It would be an axiom.

[atlaw]

So your contention is that (1) micro-evolution equals change within species, (2) macro-evolution equals speciation, and (3) speciation has never occurred, so there is no evidence of macro-evolution. Correct?

[P-Marlowe]

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.

That is why God created Cliff Notes. :-)

[ericc4]

And I thought the constitution forbid the GOVERNMENT from establishing religion.

Nope, just Congress. The First Amendment:

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.

[ChinaThreat]

From a scientific standpoint, Darwin's theory is as much of a theory as intelligent design. The theory of intelligent design states that "something so complex appears to have been designed by some other force as opposed to pure probablity and statistics". I't doesent advocate any particular religion. If it does, then it should be unconstitutional.

To remove a line of theory or though without first disproving it, is doing a disservice to those who are being presented with "possibilities". To me, barring a discussion of intelligent design in school is stupid because it is the willfull censorship of a possibility/theory. This robs students of the study of another unproven possibility. Darwin's theory is no more proven than the story of Genesis by the way.

Both should be presented.

[Protagoras]

Right now there is no way to know if a God exists.

At least for those who have yet to leave this plane of existence. Those who have departed probably know.

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

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

No. In fact, the best evidence that Christianity has the best hold on truth, is the quality of life that the Christian West has produced. It is unrivalled in the known universe.

Creation is the main function of God as people generally understand Him. However, even the Christian West can't seem to get together on the best approach to understanding His creation.

[jw777]

So, the Govt., in essence, is promoting only 1 theory and it could be argued, Religion, of athiests

[Thalos]

If there is an all-powerful God, there is absolutely NOTHING known of evolution that can't completely be explained by God's actions, or that would be incompatable with a reading of a literal 6-day creation.

A literal 6-day creation is incompatible with Genesis 2:4-7.

4 ... When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

The "literal 6-day creation" story says that plants were created first. Which literal story is true?

Why would He create false evidence? Did He not command us not to bear false witness? Why would He bear false witness against Himself?

I have asked these questions on crevo threads before and never received an answer.

[polymuser]

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!

The book didn't do that, or it's Author. Mortal men did.

[Protagoras]

Intelligent design doesn't belong in science classes.

Which classes does it belong in?

[bobdsmith]

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.

This isn't exactly correct. Macroevolution is simply evolution above the species level. Nothing about complexity at all. It's determination is as subjective as the classification system of species - that is it is blurry.

Evidence supports new species arising from examples of it actually happening in observed times, to the existance of ring species in which two populations would be considered a seperate species but for the existance of a third population that bridges them. This indicates microevolution can occur to such a level as to cause speciation and so macroevolution.

[Dead Dog]

Niether than does "origin of species"

[memetic]

While no real surprise ... it's a happy day today, that the very unsubtle attempts to jam a very backward form of religion into the public has been stopped cold.

Do these zealots NOT know that one of the greatest innovations of the Founding Fathers was to encourage all religion but to have the state back none?

What I find particularly distressing is that these religious radicals call themselves "conservatives". Barry Goldwater must be spinning in his grave.

[narby]

He called them liars for being religious and then giving nonreligious reasons for including ID in the curriculum.

He called them liars because they lied. They lied about how the money came to be collected for the "Pandas" books, and about what they said in School Board meetings. Go read the transcript.

If I were you, I wouldn't want to be associated with such people.

[polymuser]

Intelligent design doesn't belong in science classes. Which classes does it belong in?

Diversity, Inclusion, Tolerance and Multiculturalism 101.

[Shadowfax]

"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."

Nothing except the Theory of Evolution. The increasing complexity of new species that is possible in macro-evolution is absolutely required for this "theory" to have credence.

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

As I said, micro-evolution (or speciation) is a theory that obeys the scientific method. It is observable, reproducible, and predictive. Macro-evolution (new species evolving from existing species) is none of these. It violates all principles of the scientific method and should be rejected as unsound. (Screw your indirect evidence. Show me how macro-evolution (NOT SPECIATION) is observable, reproducible, or predictive. Until you can do that, you're not theorizing. You're preaching religion.)