Skip to comments.
Calif. School Scraps 'Intelligent Design' [El Tejon litigation]
The Dispatch (Lexington, N.C.) ^
| 17 January 2006
| JULIANA BARBASSA
Posted on 01/17/2006 11:24:31 AM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 441-451 next last
To: CarolinaGuitarman
Universal common descent is one of the best supported facts in science.
Please do not insult the non-historical sciences that actually produce results by saying that. I think the folks who produced the atom bomb might disagree.
You hear correctly. That doesn't make random mutation the mechanism of evolutionary change.
OK...Whatever.
To: wyattearp
Here is a description of the course, from an earlier post.
Thanks for the description. It could definitely be in a philosophy class.
Note: the Theory of Evolution is not "Darwin's Philosophy", it is Darwin's Scientific Theory. The description is a flat-out lie from the get-go.
Correct. They should be more clear but there is philosophy behind his thought process.
To: dread78645
Nope. Crick died July 2004. The syllabus was voted on December 2005.
Do you know when the syllabus was originally created?
To: microgood
"Please do not insult the non-historical sciences that actually produce results by saying that. I think the folks who produced the atom bomb might disagree."
Nice non rebuttal. And nice display of ignorance regarding historical vs. *non-historical* science.
"OK...Whatever."
The perfect creationist response to any scientific theory. :)
224
posted on
01/17/2006 5:50:41 PM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: PatrickHenry
You can ping me if you decide to go ahead.
To: b_sharp
The difference being?
Common descent refers to descent from earlier species. Universal takes us all back to a singularity of life creation. Obviously the amount of evidence for the latter is more lacking than the former and of course you cannot get there at all from DNA evidence since we have no idea what that singularity consisted of.
Saying we all came from the same original life form because all life has similar characteristics is non-falsifiable and would basically make universal common descent a non-theory.
How about a new allele or two? How about an existing allele under new conditions?
You go me there.
To: RightWhale
"Philosophy classes have no place in high school anyway."
I find this statement humorous. Earlier many were saying that ID should be taught in a "philosopy" class and that would be OK; just keep it out of a "science" class.
Is the view now that under no circumstances will alternative origens explanations be allowed, even as a philosophical view?
Whatever, do most of you know that "Philosophy" is the love of wisdom or love of science?
227
posted on
01/17/2006 5:58:34 PM PST
by
Sola Veritas
(Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
To: Sola Veritas
"Whatever, do most of you know that "Philosophy" is the love of wisdom or love of science?"
Do you know that is an idealized view of what philosophy should be?
228
posted on
01/17/2006 6:00:11 PM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: CarolinaGuitarman
Nice non rebuttal. And nice display of ignorance regarding historical vs. *non-historical* science.
This is coming from a guy who thinks universal common descent is the most supported scientific fact going, which brings ignorance to a level far beyond what I can understand.
The perfect creationist response to any scientific theory. :)
Sorry, I just can't stand childish word games.
To: wallcrawlr
"Welcome to another evo backslapping fest."
Yep, wait until they run out of Christians to bash. Then they can turn on each other to see who is the fittest. Hey, if you think you are just an evolved animal, may as well act like one.
230
posted on
01/17/2006 6:02:41 PM PST
by
Sola Veritas
(Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
To: DaveyB
"I was thinking about something observable like one species changing into another - that would be good! And then repeat it so it can verified then - Ah yes -then we have a little science happining. Until then we have vivid imagination. Strictly speaking and using the scientific definition of species, we have directly observed speciation. As far as the creationist definition of speciation which requires a species belonging to one 'kind' changing into a species of another 'kind' it just does not happen and is in no way a part of evolution or the ToE. It is a straw man.
If you expect all observations in science to be 'direct' observation you are due for a rude awakening. Almost all science is about indirect observation, observation of the affects not necessarily the causes. Geology did not observe the geologic column develop. What they observe is wind and water pushing material around and volcanoes depositing lava. They then extrapolate from what they know to what they did not observe. Plate tectonics is not observed directly, movement of plates is measured as tiny changes and the large scale movement of plates is inferred from a fair number of observations of effects which are the result of plate movement. Quantum mechanics measures not the actual particle/wave but the effect they have on other things.
What evolutionary scientists see are fossils that give a general indication of a sequence of changes from one species to another. What those same scientists observe and measure is the affect a change in an allele has on the morphology of a extant species. What those scientists observe and measure is the rate of mutation and the rate of morphological change in extant species. They then extrapolate those mechanisms to the broader time span of fossil changes.
These same scientists examine DNA sequences and measure the similarities and differences between extant species. They statistically analyze that data and determine when the two species diverged.
Note these two concepts from Newton:
(2) the same natural effects must be assigned to the same causes,
(3) qualities of bodies are to be esteemed as universal, and
What this in effect says is that what you find going on now is what went on in the past and what went on in the past is what is going on now. There is a consistency that can be relied on.
231
posted on
01/17/2006 6:03:03 PM PST
by
b_sharp
(Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
To: microgood
The guy was put on the syllabus before he died.
Really? When was the syllabus created.
Again, this is OK in Philosophy. We spent the first two years of Philosophy classes tearing down arguments.
Tearing down arguments with faulty science and well-debunked canards like the "second law of thermodynamics" pap?
Do you really think you can eliminate anyone from arguing for ID and against evolution?
Non-sequitur. No one is arguing this.
If you want to see Christianity savaged, read 19th Century German Philosophy. Nietzsche and others party on it pretty hard.
Non-squitur. This has nothing to do with the course in question.
One can make Biblical arguments in a Philosophy class.
No, because if you do that it becomes a religion class.
232
posted on
01/17/2006 6:03:16 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: jennyp
Not to mention that atheism causes ignorance. I think it is more of a chicken and egg type situation - many people who became atheists were already ignorant individuals to begin with - a rather misreable lot, allying themselves with anti-Americans such as the ACLU and Barry Lynn. Always minding other people's business.
233
posted on
01/17/2006 6:04:03 PM PST
by
Hacksaw
(The liberal wants to control what you do. The atheist wants to control what you think.)
To: microgood
"This is coming from a guy who thinks universal common descent is the most supported scientific fact going, which brings ignorance to a level far beyond what I can understand."
It is. The earliest trunk of the tree of life is blurry, but certainly after about 500 million years ago there is no scientific dispute that all life has a common ancestor. It is certain we have a common ancestor with chimps, for instance. Only a zealot could think otherwise after looking at the ERV evidence.
"Sorry, I just can't stand childish word games."
You really think "Ok...whatever" is a valid argument?
234
posted on
01/17/2006 6:05:49 PM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: microgood
Thanks for the description. It could definitely be in a philosophy class. That was just one snippet. To get a full perspective, read the entire complaint (it's not very long) at:
(The actual lawsuit)
It goes into a lot more detail. It is really the only way to fully understand the complaint, and also the best way to understand why the school cancelled the course rather than fight the lawsuit.
235
posted on
01/17/2006 6:07:29 PM PST
by
wyattearp
(The best weapon to have in a gunfight is a shotgun - preferably from ambush.)
To: Sola Veritas
Hey, if you think you are just an evolved animal, may as well act like one.That's highly evolved to you, buster! :-)
236
posted on
01/17/2006 6:09:09 PM PST
by
jennyp
(WWJBD?)
To: Sola Veritas
do most of you know that "Philosophy" is the love of wisdom or love of science? Beware conjurors, magicians, jugglers, charlatans, musicians and philosphers.
237
posted on
01/17/2006 6:09:53 PM PST
by
RightWhale
(pas de lieu, Rhone que nous)
To: Dimensio
Tearing down arguments with faulty science and well-debunked canards like the "second law of thermodynamics" pap?
Normally in philosophy you attack the logic of the arguments or assumptions related to interpreting evidence, more from a logical and reasoning aspects and not so much at the detail level. But you could take, say an event like the dating of a fossil, and analyze the logic that came to the conclusion of the age of the fossil all the way back to the formulas that were created to explain the behavior of radioactive decay.
No, because if you do that it becomes a religion class.
Then what do you suppose all universities discuss in their Philosophy of Religion classes?
To: microgood
Normally in philosophy you attack the logic of the arguments or assumptions related to interpreting evidence, more from a logical and reasoning aspects and not so much at the detail level. But you could take, say an event like the dating of a fossil, and analyze the logic that came to the conclusion of the age of the fossil all the way back to the formulas that were created to explain the behavior of radioactive decay.
But that's a scientific argument, not a philosophical claim. And why didn't you answer my question about when the syllabus was written?
Then what do you suppose all universities discuss in their Philosophy of Religion classes?
Typically various religious claims are examined to determine the meaning and justification. That's not comparable to assuming Biblical literalism as fact from the start and "interpreting" scientific claims accordingly.
239
posted on
01/17/2006 6:18:18 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
And why didn't you answer my question about when the syllabus was written?
Actually I was confused because that is the same question I asked someone else. I do not know when it was created but I assume it was created before he died, otherwise why would he be on it?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 441-451 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson