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.
Since the theory calls for the first item being "breathed by the Creator", does this open the doors for at least some teaching in our schools about creationism?
pinging myself to read later
What percentage of the total available knowledge do you claim to possess? You are claiming absolute certainty of the truth of the proposition that there is not enough knowledge to be able to determine whether or not there is a God. In order to make this claim with certainty you would have had to search throughout the entire universe, because of the possibility that knowledge of God might exist somewhere you haven't looked yet. You cannot possibly search everywhere since you are a finite being. Therefore, unless you are omniscient (or God Himself) you cannot be certain that that there isn't knowledge somewhere that you haven't looked yet. Therefore you cannot be certain that there is no way to know if God exists.
Cordially,
You sound like Michael Moore, and I am a person who leans toward evolution after being ID for a long time.
One would hope a certain amount of dialogue would extend to explanations of how the universe is organized and how it behaves. Dialogue entails at least two sides. Judge Judy Jones doesn't appear to like "dialogue."
"Most of my exposure to atheists comes here at FR on the evo/crevo threads."
I see. Well, then, I'd avoid making statements about "most" atheists. Only a few post here on Free Republic. I've found that most of them have excellent senses of humor, besides.
May Kali bless you, or at least not destroy you in a fit of pique!
I see, so schools should not be places of legitimate inquiry on important subjects? Only some theories should be mentioned?
Your statement. Did you not mean to imply that intelligent design belongs in the classroom? If you did not I will apologize but since this debate involves only 2 choices, ID does or does not belong in the classroom, I don't think I misread your intent.
Try again. Scientific estimates of the age of the earth stabilised about 50 years ago (at around the time that a technique for determining the age of the earth by a reliable method emerged, by a curious coincidence) and haven't moved significantly since. Assessments of the age of the earth before the middle of the last century were little more than informed speculation, except that a lower bound could be put on the age by observing the rate of geological processes.
I can try to look up a link later. You might try Patrick Henry's list-o-links. I'm too far behind right now.
I remember an article where one of the school board members got caught saying one thing, and tapes made by a reporter were different. Also the "Pandas" funding thing, the guy testified he had no idea where the money came from, but it was his father, or someone close, who had collected money at the church where the board member attended, and gave it to the school.
Basically, for him to have not lied, he had to have been unconscious at several points, while things happened in his close proximity that he supported merely by "chance".
He was a liar, just not as good at it as Bill Clinton.
I absolutely agree that some people go overboard equating all of Christianity with Islamofascism. It must be pointed out that there is a small percentage of extremely vocal self-proclaimed Christians who will deliberately lie in order to promote a specific religious agenda. Their actions should be (and generally are) roundly criticized.
"Scietists have said the Earth was millions of years old and not its billions. Next century, it'll probably be trillions."
The estimate of millions of years old predates radioisotope dating--hell, it predates the revolution in physics wrought by understanding the structure of the atom which makes radioisotope dating techniques possible.
When you've got a criticism be sure to present it. Others have presented evidence of speciation, while you are about it go and google on "ring species" to see examples of it occurring right now in the wild. Or maybe you'd just prefer to remain ignorant and continue to talk garbage about something you haven't bothered to investigate.
"An honest scientist would pose this as a null hypothesis and begin attempting to falsify it."
It is already falsifiable. The test will be if scientists are be able to assemble simple (or even complex) life forms from nonliving matter in the lab. If however, any life forms are shown to spontaneously arise from nonliving matter (in a naturally occurring environment), it would falsify this hypothesis.
Both of these directions are already being explored and will be regardless of the ID debate.
If it is shown that simple life forms do self organize like the elements of the periodic table, then this ID hypothesis will be proved wrong.
There are really only a very limited number of possibilities for the origin of life. ID has the only current scientific hypothesis for the origin of life.
The theory of evolution does not explain where the first living (i.e., self-reproducing) thing came from. Darwin assumed that it was "breathed by the Creator." (See the link I posted in post # 289 on this thread.) The theory of evolution explains only how that one living thing became the host of different species we see around us. (That's why Darwin's book was called The Origin of Species, not "The Origin of Life.")
"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."
I have read articles from more than one source. I have read statements of the judge. I have not found a link to the transcript from the articles, Dover school district, Thomas More Law Center, or National Center for Science Education.
If you know where a transcript can be found, would you kindly provide a link?
Try this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
This is a particularly relevant passage to what narby was saying - it's where the judge takes over the questioning himself, and points out the inconsistencies in Alan Bonsell's story about where the money came from to buy the books and what his connection was with it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day18pm2.html#day18pm1289
Trying to deny me my blackguard status I see! Well, it won't work. I claim blackguardness as an inalienable right.
I'll get mine? When? In time for Christmas?
I really think Christians should start arguing in public that Darwin was an intelligent designer. There is good historical evidence on this point. From this line of analysis, they should suggest that Darwinism actually affirms a biblical worldview.
Using the bogus establishment logic of the court, it will then be necessary to censor ALL evolutionary biology from public school curriculums since Christians derive an affirmation of their faith. Therefore, Darwin's theory it constitutes an establishment of religion.
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.