Posted on 09/26/2005 1:53:21 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
A Pennsylvania school district's use of "intelligent design" in its high school biology curriculum goes on trial in federal court today in the nation's first legal challenge to the idea, which contends that evolutionary theory alone does not explain how life on Earth took shape.
The lawsuit, brought by 11 parents in the Dover Area School District, attacks as unconstitutional the year-old policy of telling ninth-grade biology students that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution "is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence." School officials also recommend a book on intelligent design, or ID.
The plaintiffs, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, argue that the policy -- which does not require students to study intelligent design -- serves religious, not secular ends, violating the First Amendment.
ID proponents say scientists can look at life forms and identify the work of a controlling "intelligence," although ID advocates are not specific about the nature of that force. While they do not reject all evolutionary theory, ID proponents argue that it incorrectly insists life took shape purely through a mindless process.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
Feel free to ignore the copious retroviral DNA, fossil, and biogeographical evidence. By all means preserve your ignorance at all costs. Just don't try to push ignorance into science class, thank you.
And how do you feel about global warming and the effect on monster hurricanes?
It is already in science class. And your fossil record in no way proves we descended from anything other than human beings. But just keep trying to force us to believe it - you never know who just might fall for it.
So did they lie in their answers or did they tell the truth as they see it (which would have meant failing the exam)? Aren't they members of a religion with an injunction against false witness?
What about the retroviral evidence then? You have been shown it before in these debates. How do you account for it?
Did I call you something? Human are apes, by definition, but still humans just like gorillas are apes, but still gorillas.
That would make them unusual on this forum, where creationists are completely unable to state correctly the position they argue against.
They figured the false witness was what the teacher was telling them. Just because you learn the answers doesn't necessarily mean you have to believe them.
I don't believe humans are apes. Just because someone else believes that certainly doesn't mean I have to. Just like those who don't believe in God. That is their right.
When one has enough knowledge of a subject then debate is not only acceptable but encouraged. When one is illiterate of a subject insisting on debating it just makes one look foolish.
Why? I mean, if you were confident in your opinion would you really be so weak as to deny your conscience just to keep up appearances? Would you really sell out your beliefs, not because an argument compelled you to question them, but simply because opposing a usual adversary is more important to you than what you believe is the right thing to do?
Sounds very similar to the mindless knee-jerk reactions of the 'Hate Bush' crowd who refuse to support what even they would embrace if only it were presented by someone other than their sworn enemy. Myself, I prefer to hold true to my own opinions regardless of who agrees with or opposes them.
I am used to the evolutionists looking foolish - doesn't seem to stop them, though.
Your answer isn't clear. Did they supply answers in the exam that they believe to be falsehoods? That would be lying.
Any chance of you addressing that retroviral evidence? If you don't understand it perhaps you should run it by one of your clever daughters to get the rebuttal for me. If you have a valid rebuttal then you'll convince me.
Global warming is a theory with some, but little data to support it. The issue is in doubt. I personally am unconvinced. The only good "Greenie" point is that if GW is real, by the time we have enough data to prove it, it'll be "too late". So that scares people. That's how it gets traction. Most environmental scientists I know say "Maybe".
As to hurricanes if you check on my older posts about a week ago we discusse the effect of unicorn farts on monster hurricanes. It was enlightening 8-)
Why do you care what my daughters believe? They learned what they needed to for grades - is that so difficult for you to comprehend? Or is that not good enough? Should they have bowed down to Darwin and exclaimed he was right all along and the Bible was wrong? Would that make you feel better?
So are you saying you don't believe everything scientists tell us?
Your belief is not required. Scientists pigeon hole most things - makes things more orderly. By definition, Man is an ape. You don't have to like it, but if will use the word then it has a specific definition. You can't have your words defined as you want without running the risk of being misunderstood or of being incapable of communication. That's why we have dictionaries.
If you want to consider yourself an ape, that is fine with me. I however am human.
You still aren't answering the question that I asked. Did they lie in their exam answers or not? Is that so hard a question?
Any chance of addressing the retroviral evidence, or getting one of your clever daughters to rebut it; I'm fascinatedly awaiting your response on that, and you keep ignoring the question.
You want me to call my daughters and ask them what their answers were on tests? LOL
Why do you care? Slow day at work?
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.