Supreme Court Won't Hear Case on Teaching Evolution

Fox News & Associated Press ^ | 07 January 2002 | AP Staff

[PatrickHenry]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court declined Monday to be drawn into a debate over the teaching of evolution in America's public schools.

The refusal is a victory for schools that require teachers to instruct on the subject even if the teacher disagrees with the scientific theory.

[PatrickHenry]

Yippie! An old-fashioned creation vs evolution thread!

So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review: The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 13].

[PatrickHenry]

Bump.

[PatrickHenry]

Bump.

[Exnihilo]

Junior's work is pretty comprehensive, but his definition of Creationism is rather limited wouldn't you say?

I've been told that I'm a "creationist" because I simply believe God was and is involved in biological development in some way.

These stupid threads will never end until everyone can agree on just what in the hell a "Creationist" is.

[Exnihilo]

It would have been more interesting if he'd been trying to teach Intelligent Design theory along side Evolution. That's a court case I'm still waiting on.. it's only a matter of time..

Quick, someone tell me that Intelligent Design theory "isn't science"!! Then I'll respond, as usual, asking for a detailed explaination of why, and as usual, no substantive response will follow. Gotta love these threads.

[PatrickHenry]

Quick, someone tell me that Intelligent Design theory "isn't science"!

The evidence for ID is identical to the evidence for divine design. It goes like this: "Golly, I can't figure out how X happened. Therefore ... "

Because that isn't evidence, ID "theory" is not science.

[Hunble]

I have absolutly no problem with the Intelligent Design theory being taught in school, as long as they teach the details of how it works.

[RadioAstronomer]

Because that isn't evidence, ID "theory" is not science.

Now you did it! Here we go ROFL! BTW, I agree completely with you.

[VadeRetro]

[Creationist LeVake] proposed offering students "an honest look at the difficulties and inconsistencies of the theory without turning my class into a religious one."

In theory, there's nothing unreasonable in this proposal. There are all sorts of un-worked-out areas in evolution. The practical difficulty is the certain knowledge of what a 6-Day, young earth creationist means when he says "honest look." I've been seeing the creationist's idea of what "honest look" means for almost three years now. If there's one thing it isn't it's honest. For sure, it's nothing to be teaching kids who haven't been taught any real science yet.

[Rain-maker]

Amazing how mankind dechipers unwritten history, but has no clue of its future..

"God does not play dice." Albert Einstein

[Vladiator]

Oh boo hoo hoo.

[Exnihilo]

Bzzzz. Wrong. Patrick, you've just proved to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have absolutely no idea what ID Theory says, or what Dembski has written about exactly this subject.

Now, again- please show me *specifically* what in ID theory is "unscientific". It shouldn't be hard. After all, most of Dembski's work is published on-line.

Is SETI "unscientific"? Is it "unscientific" to attempt to determine design based on known criterion? You see, ID doesn't look to what we don't know, as a God-of-the-gaps fallacy would imply. Rather, it looks at precisely what we DO know about designed systems. Again, I ask you- specifically what in ID theory is "unscientific", and please if you would, supply me with references to support your claims.

[Exnihilo]

I agree completely with you.

Why? And please, be specific. Cite ID papers, give me quotes, references, anything. It shouldn't be hard since I'm sure you've read the literature, right? :) I'll be waiting.

[kdf1]

Deuteronomy 6:5 and numerous other scriptures talk about teaching children. The Government schools are qualified to teach Christian or Jewish children. Leave those schools to the atheists. I want back the ADA that I didn't get for my children. I want to separate my education money as a Christian from the atheist state system. The state owes refunds to all who have refused to subject themselves to their system based on freedom of religion.

[PatrickHenry]

Amazing how mankind dechipers unwritten history, but has no clue of its future..

There is a simple reason which explains what you perceive as a paradox. The past leaves clues which can be examined. So far, we've received no information from the future.

[Exnihilo]

Hey, just for fun.. tell me what criterion a theory must meet to be "scientific". It seems to me that for something to be 'scientific' it must be subject to the scientific method, right? But then, in that respect, darwinian evolution as an explaination for biodiversity is "unscientific". So, what exactly do we mean when we say something is "scientific" ?

[Hunble]

How does ID work?

Not who or why, but how. Please explain the physical and/or chemical reactions that are involved with sufficient detail that students would have something to study and experiment with.

[kdf1]

Post 14. My error=qualified. Should read: not qualified

[Exnihilo]

Hunble, ID theory involves very advanced mathematics. I don't know that I would seriously advocate it be taught at the high school level for that very reason. However, detecting design is a very big field in information theory. I find it odd that people view SETI as an acceptable attempt at discerning intelligence, but not ID theory, oh no! And it's not for any real reason, except that ID theory treads on some very cherished territory. So, while the 'how' as in how does the intelligence do the designing, may be out of the grasp of empirical examination, the 'how' as in how do we detect design, or attempt to detect design, is a very well known and widely studied theory. The controversy as I said is its application to biological systems.

[VadeRetro]

Isn't ID the "science" of throwing up your hands and saying "I'll never understand this! God must have done it!"

Which is to say, once you accept ID, you'll never learn another thing about the universe. And if that's science, my farts are perfume.