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.
Of course it's possible. I can talk to an architect concerning his designs and intentions. Has anyone had an interview with the Designer?
Which part is Mythology? Jesus or everything written in the bible?
So if archeologists discovered many of the sites, names and history that was written in the bible would that just make it a coincidence? I think some of the stories are hard to believe but it is much harder to believe that something came from nothing.
This is what the most brilliant theologian (so far as I'm concerned) in the history of Christianity said about 1800 years ago:
Now what person of intelligence will believe that the first and the second and the third day and the evening and the morning existed without the sun and moon and stars? And that the first day, if we may so call it, was even without a heaven? And who is so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, "planted a paradise eastward in Eden," and set in it a visible and palpable "tree of life," of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life; and again that one could partake of "good and evil" by masticating the fruit taken from the tree of that name? And when God is said to "walk in the paradise in the cool of the day" and Adam to hide himself behind a tree, I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history and not through actual events.--Origen, On First Principles, Book IV, Chapter 3, Section 1
If he could figure it out from the state of science back in the Roman era, I see no reason why anyone should have a problem with it today.
That would be very useful.
Can I post a spoiler from the conclusion? ;)
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.
With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
And having read this, surely ID probably DOES deserve mention in a biology class, and it should be given all the time it is due, say, 1 to 5 minutes, and then left at that.
When it is God's hand which is holding atoms together, which is the reason God belongs in the science classroom.
Yes, but God is not a testable theory. Science does not seek to prove or disprove God. God is beyond our small understanding of the universe. And science is a tool that we use to probe and understand our tiny corner of God's universe. That's all it is; it is not a commentary on the nature or existence of God. And, secondly, why on earth would you want public school teachers teaching religion to your kids? I sure as heck don't.
Everything written in the Bible? No. Genesis? Yes. When they dig up the bones of Adam and the ruins of Eden, I'll be proven wrong.
Thanks for the link PH!
Here's a mirror:
http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/main_docs/kitzmiller_342.pdf
Thanks for the ping!
Evolution is a religion...
To believe that garbage as FACT takes a whole new level of idiocy...
- plewis1250
Sorry for mixing names. Who are the people who deal with the origins of life? I thought evoltion theory went all the way from the origin of the universe until today.
radical extremists lose, scientists win...
A simple idea which some (most?) on FreeRepublic fail to comprehend. A former tagline of mine comes to mind, somewhat edited "Just because we (science) are not perfect, does not mean we are not good."
Have you read any of the treatises on ID? Highly scientific (even if you disagree with their premise and conclusion) and do not belong on the "Religious" shelves at the bookstores.
Thanks for the mirror posting. I've got it downloaded on my hard drive now. This is big. Very big.
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.