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.
"You clearly don't know what ID is."
Thanks for such a quick judgement.
"Nothing in ID requires creation from nothing, nor does it require any kind of divinity on the part of the creator."
Where did all the stuff that we see come from unless from an intelligent designer who created the very stuff with which to design?
"Answer me this: If you walked into a room and found 500 dice on a table and they all had the 6 side up and were placed so as to spell out your name, would you think it more likely that they were placed that way by an intellligent being, or that they randomly fell into that configuration? Is not our plant a far more complex configuration than that?"
Don't quite understand your analogy. Are you saying that the configuration involves a designer but that designer is not divine? Please explain. A litte confused. Thanks
Atheistic science? Is that anything like scientific religion?
"Define 'not a fish'."
"Not a fish" refers to something that is other than a fish. For further information, please see a dictionary.
"Define 'more complex than a fish'."
"More complex than a fish" refers to something that is biologically more complex than a fish. i.e., A human being. ("i. e." means "for example." Just trying to circumvent your next round of definitional confusion.) I've peeked, and that's the end result of little evolutionary theory. I'm actually cutting you a break by letting you start with fish. The actual theory has the beginning of the chain at primordial soup. You know, it's actually pretty funny. Evolution would make a good comedy routine. There once was a bowl of primordial soup that imagined that it was a man.......
"Hmmm, what previously made observations does your street-preacher's sign confirm? What successful predictions have been made using it? What hypothetical observations would falsify it? If you have sensible answers to those questions then you can rate the preacher's sign as a theory. Until then it is just a baseless assertion, unlike scientific theories such as the theory of evolution."
You are obviously mistaking my intent. I was not attempting to raise the sign held by my street preacher to the level of a scientific theory. I was lowering the "theory" of evolution to the level of a religious doctrine. Actually, I wasn't trying to do that either. My bad. Evolution is at the level of a relgious doctrine. You're the one who's trying to elevate evolution to a standard that it does not merit - that of a serious scientific theory.
Good luck. You'll need it.
Or maybe I should say, God bless you. You'll need a miracle.
Um, that's the definition of Intelligent Design.
ID accept evolution. ID accepts a common ancestor. Heck, according to Behe God could be dead, since He hasn't done anything in a long time. That's what ID is.
Funny how so many creationists cheerlead for ID without realizing what it actually say.
LOL!
I double-dog dare someone to take that to Cobb County and demand that it be taught as an alternate theory, along with the Flat Earth Theory!
I think it is! It teaches kids that there are different schools of thought, and enough about each of those schools of thought to be able to understand them and study further, discuss it in class, debate it in places like this, and decide for themselves. Obviously people they run into in life will have different views. Should we just avoid telling a student about that?
Scientific Religion...Atheistic Science...both attempt to prove something came from nothing, or one thing, whether be by God or by a some sort of superparticle that randomly expanded w/o a catalyst into millions of stars and galaxies.
"Don't you feel compelled to tell the lad he is talking to himself? He must be delusional. Why not wise the kid up?
And three languages? Doesn't God know how to understand simple English? LOL"
I think you should slap the hell out of whoever taught you science. They didn't even give you the proper definition. ;)
"They are the duly elected representatives of the people of that district.
If the people of that district agree that they are breathtakingly inane then the people of that district have the power to recall them and vote them out."
I never had any of the courses when I was in government school. I don't see any of them in the curriculum of my local schools. Do you propose we start them in the government schools where I live?
Well, to listen to educators, I thought that was part of core curriculum, in every subject, at all public schools for years now. /sarcasm
"Actual scientific theories based on facts will be taught in the science classroom"
We'll there goes the P.C. attempts at preaching global warming.
Alright,
Let's go back to first year science, using Scientific Method, prove the Big Bang Theory.
Well it's incredibly easy to criticize Marx & Freud now that they have been largely discredited and act as if it's oh-so-obvious that they were phonies, but at the zenith of their movements, every respectable member of the fields of economics and psychotherapy, respectively, consider them to be almost beyond criticism, their theories not just theories, but the most compelling organized understandings of their subject matters.
In fact, to have criticized them at one time is to have committed professional suicide. Marx and Freud's disciples would have marshalled impressive defenses of their Prophets during the heady days of their dominance.
Darwin is still in his heyday. But I'm sure it's oh-so-different in this case. Yes, that's right, it's different with Darwin..
Who proposed such a thing?
That's an insult? Have you never noted the vile accusations Creationists make on these threads?
RWP said "You have a very narrow view of the scientific method": a judgement he made from your statement. Anyone who does underatsnd the Scientific Method would would agree.
If he misinterpreted your statement, that's the objection you should make. Not whining like some "liberal" whose feelings have been hurt.
"In 1927, the Belgian priest Georges Lemaître was the first to propose that the universe began with the explosion of a primeval atom. His proposal came after observing the red shift in distant nebulas by astronomers to a model of the universe based on relativity. Years later, Edwin Hubble found experimental evidence to help justify Lemaître's theory. He found that distant galaxies in every direction are going away from us with speeds proportional to their distance."
Am I correct in the fact that the universe started w/ one superatom?
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.