Posted on 12/20/2005 12:12:16 PM PST by truthfinder9
SEATTLE — "The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work," said Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, the nation's leading think tank researching the scientific theory known as intelligent design. “He has conflated Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it.”
“A legal ruling can't change the fact that there is digital code in DNA, it can’t remove the molecular machines from the cell, nor change the fine tuning of the laws of physics,” added West. “The empirical evidence for design, the facts of biology and nature, can't be changed by legal decree."
In his decision, Judge John Jones ruled that the Dover, Pennsylvania school district violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by requiring a statement to be read to students notifying them about intelligent design. Reaching well beyond the immediate legal questions before him, Judge Jones offered wide-ranging and sometimes angry comments denouncing intelligent design and praising Darwinian evolution.
"Judge Jones found that the Dover board violated the Establishment Clause because it acted from religious motives. That should have been the end to the case," said West. "Instead, Judge Jones got on his soapbox to offer his own views of science, religion, and evolution. He makes it clear that he wants his place in history as the judge who issued a definitive decision about intelligent design. This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur."
"Anyone who thinks a court ruling is going to kill off interest in intelligent design is living in another world," continued West. "Americans don't like to be told there is some idea that they aren't permitted to learn about.. It used to be said that banning a book in Boston guaranteed it would be a bestseller. Banning intelligent design in Dover will likely only fan interest in the theory."
"In the larger debate over intelligent design, this decision will be of minor significance," added Discovery Institute attorney Casey Luskin. "As we've repeatedly stressed, the ultimate validity of intelligent design will be determined not by the courts but by the scientific evidence pointing to design.”
Luskin pointed out that the ruling only applies to the federal district in which it was handed down. It has no legal effect anywhere else. The decision is also unlikely to be appealed, since the recently elected Dover school board members campaigned on their opposition to the policy. "The plans of the lawyers on both sides of this case to turn this into a landmark ruling have been preempted by the voters," he said.
"Discovery Institute continues to oppose efforts to mandate teaching about the theory of intelligent design in public schools," emphasized West. "But the Institute strongly supports the freedom of teachers to discuss intelligent design in an objective manner on a voluntary basis. We also think students should learn about both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwin's theory of evolution."
Drawing on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and related disciplines, the scientific theory of intelligent design proposes that some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. Proponents include scientists at numerous universities and science organizations around the world.
Your blog is interesting, but one sided. If I could find 700 more scientists, or 7,000, or 700,000, I bet you would attempt to put them down, too.
I used to think that there was a POSSIBILITY that God used evolution, but after reading so much about evolution, I came to realize that there are not facts to back it up - only more theories.
For instance:
1) What SPECIFIC scientific law states that one kind of creature can turn into another kind of creature?
2) What SPECIFIC scientific law states that nothing comes from something?
"It's funny how the Darwin Fundies in the trial never addressed the science that the ID supporters presented."
Whoops....
That was actually a snip I was quoting from "truthfinder9" in post 18. I'll ping him/her here so he/she sees it.
IDers have a great respect for REAL scientists - the ones who are free thinkers, and discover cures for horrible diseases, invent stuff that make our lives better, etc.
It is the scientists who are stuck in the past, that we have a problem with.
Not to say they are not nice people, but they have been brainwashed for so many years, that they forgot that scientists should be curious by nature, and look to NEW EVIDENCE.
ID has some intellectually stimulating ideas in it. It would be good for kids to be exposed to. I think it makes biology much more interesting than evolutionary theory - it is sort of like the difference between the mechanical universe, and the quantum world, in the physical sciences.
Better question: what law says one can't?
What SPECIFIC scientific law states that nothing comes from something?
You've lost me.
Well, I happen to be a scientist by training and occupation, working in the biotech field - and I have no use for IDers. Why, they couldn't even accept a loss of Dover case with class. The judge in Dover was absolutely correct: ID is theology, not science.
Suppose a researcher finds that "junk" DNA encodes for expression of processes that can construct cognates of our cells' structures (carbon based) in silicon rich environments? That would be pretty exciting, don't you think? Wouldn't you think that would constitute proof that DNA was designed?
Judge Jones showed his blatant bias - like THIS:
"Reaching well beyond the immediate legal questions before him, Judge Jones offered wide-ranging and sometimes angry comments denouncing intelligent design and praising Darwinian evolution."
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/dover_intelligent_design_decis.html
As an ACTIVIST judge usually does, Judge Jones made up his mind BEFORE he even heard the facts.
>1) What SPECIFIC scientific law states that one kind of creature can turn into another kind of creature?
"Better question: what law says one can't?"
CIRCULAR REASONING?
>What SPECIFIC scientific law states that nothing comes from something?"
"You've lost me."
Don't know how else to say it. How could SOMETHING, like this glorious world that we live in, evolve from nothing?
You don't have a problem with the fact that Judge Jones denounced ID and praised evo??
How can a biased judge be a fair judge?
Have you any proof of this assertion?
ID and evolution are not antithetical at all. ID proposes that DNA encodes processes that express coordinated (irreducibly complex) mechanisms that cope with a wide range of environmental stresses in a way that that is statistically incompatible with accidental arrangement. Environmental stresses do select the specific sequences of DNA that generate individuals of the species that can survive - it is just that the sequences encode expressions of interrelated complex processes and structures that accident could not have produced in the amount of time that we believe passed between the origin of a habitable Earth (liquid water on its surface) and the appearance of life.
No, I do not have any problem there. And learn to lose with class, otherwise it is unseemly.
Actually, gravity is not understood at all!
There is no class in giving up.
I said there was a Nobel Prize going for the person who explained it
Not at all. You're asking what law allows evolution. What law allows you to get up in the morning?
Don't know how else to say it. How could SOMETHING, like this glorious world that we live in, evolve from nothing?
It didn't evolve from nothing. It evolved from a world with all the necessary materials, and a source of energy (actually, several)
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.