Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dispute over evolution goes on trial in U.S. court
Baltimore Sun ^ | September 26, 2005 | Arthur Hirsch

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: allcrevoallthetime; anothercrevothread; crevolist; crevorepublic; education; enoughalready; evolution; id; lawsuit; religion; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 401-404 next last
To: DesertSapper
Good grief, it isn't easy to get a simple answer on this is it? However, to his credit, Dimensio did finally give me a "no". Kudos to him/her.

Highball also gave you a "no" answer in post 52. Why did you ignore this?
181 posted on 09/26/2005 10:45:47 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Just don't try to define "theory" out of the dictionary. You'll get flamed for that. Scientists, I have been repeatedly told, have their own special version of the definition. (so as to accuse creationists of semantics.)

You may want to bone up a bit on your science education again. I know you have told me you have taken lots of classes....Didn't stick I guess.

182 posted on 09/26/2005 10:46:30 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Some argue? It isn't unanimous?

Yes, there there are scientists who make the case that chimpanzees are sufficiently related to humans that the taxonomical classifications should be the same on the genus level.

Is that what you are saying?

What I'm saying is, like it or not, you are genetically and taxonomically related to the rest of the Hominidae family.

183 posted on 09/26/2005 10:46:32 AM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: DesertSapper
You aren't bothered by an anti-American, anti-Christian group in your corner . . . I would be.

Does it bother you that your creation belief is shared by a great number of anti-American Islamic fanatics?
184 posted on 09/26/2005 10:47:06 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

Some argue? It isn't unanimous? Some scientists disagree? Is that what you are saying?


But, but, I was told here on FR that there are no contradictions in science.


185 posted on 09/26/2005 10:47:13 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Placing them in a certain order to support your point of view is man's idea. Talk about making the data fit your theory.

Perhaps you should try to understand the evidence before criticising a bizarre cartoon version of how scientists treat fossils. Do you really think people who spend their lives on this are that stupid?

186 posted on 09/26/2005 10:48:29 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

It is easier for me to get a life than for you to get a brain.


187 posted on 09/26/2005 10:49:16 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
I suppose you consider yourself clever.

At least you don't suffer from the possibility of that particular vanity.

188 posted on 09/26/2005 10:50:08 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Scientism is an Amoral religion.

Meaning, of course, that science does not attribute ongoing events to the interventions of God. Neither does science blame God for hurricanes and earthquakes or disease.

If, however, ID gets into the classroom, it will be taught that the anonymous designer -- space aliens or whatever -- has designed diseases, parasites, predators and other nasties.

If you like the way public schools teach sex education, you will love the way they teach ID.

189 posted on 09/26/2005 10:51:07 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: metmom
But, but, I was told here on FR that there are no contradictions in science.

Really? Can you cite an example?

190 posted on 09/26/2005 10:51:10 AM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

It's no worse than what evolutionists accuse creationists of doing. Seems as though evolutionists are incapable of accepting the fact that someone can look at the same data and arrive at a different conclusion. Don't scientists even do that at times or are they ALWAYS in agreement?


191 posted on 09/26/2005 10:51:22 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

"flapdoodle"?

What kind of scientific term is that?


192 posted on 09/26/2005 10:54:26 AM PDT by hyperkitty (DON'T PANIC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Seems as though evolutionists are incapable of accepting the fact that someone can look at the same data and arrive at a different conclusion.

This is a common criticism of the mainstream scientific conclusions made by creationists here on FR. Unfortunately it is completely uninformed as to the nature of the scientific process. The key thing about scientific theories is that they should make successful predictions about as-yet unobserved data-points. The theory of evolution has 150 years of success at that or scientists would abandon it. Predictions made by creation-science and ID, such as they are, invariably fall flat on their faces.

193 posted on 09/26/2005 10:54:55 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: malakhi

This was on one of the last few evolution threads. I have an idea where but it'll take some time to find it.


194 posted on 09/26/2005 10:56:52 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: malakhi

"What I'm saying is, like it or not, you are genetically and taxonomically related to the rest of the Hominidae family."

Of course - we have the same Creator!


195 posted on 09/26/2005 10:58:29 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Considering you don't know me, I don't really value your opinion.


196 posted on 09/26/2005 10:58:59 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Doubtful.


197 posted on 09/26/2005 10:59:33 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

By your words, I know you.


198 posted on 09/26/2005 10:59:43 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Scientists have not nor will they ever be able to "prove" evolution. But that isn't to say that shouldn't keep trying.


199 posted on 09/26/2005 11:00:25 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

And by yours, I know you. You are one of the pompous, smarter-than-anyone else, evolutionists. Not impressed.


200 posted on 09/26/2005 11:01:10 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 401-404 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson