Posted on 12/20/2005 12:12:16 PM PST by truthfinder9
Mostly it's due to the intellectual caliber of most of its defenders on FR.
No one is going to appeal this. That school board was completely replaced with other members who have no desire to waste further time and money on a pointless effort.
Evolution is a theory (science). ID is faith (religion). They are both valid schools of thought but belong in different categories.
I said there was a Nobel Prize going for the person who explained it
No problem: There is no Gravity. The earth sucks.
Where do I send away for my Nobel Prize?
</Oldie but Goodie>
For a review of the latest science that shows man and apes aren't related, see this post.
And if you don't have time to read technical books, go here: Descent of Mankind Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology for a quick review.
Some of this science goes back a few years. "But the Darwin Fundies told me it doesn't exist!" Well, surprise, surprise, it does.
Except for the fact that it was created specifically to try and sneak Creation Science past the Constitution.
Have you any proof of this assertion?
Google "Wedge Document."
We also see it in this case - the school board denied that it was an attempt to sneak creationism into the schools, but they were caught in their lies.
Still doesn't say WHO designed it. . . (evil grin)
Creation. Creation is a more radical version of ID. ID could be evolution guided by a being.
Suppose there is a parent who tells the school district that he does not want his children to be taught about suicide in favorable terms. This parent is rebuffed. His children are given a textbook about suicide written by one of those pro-euthanasia groups.
The parent takes his case to court and wins. The school district is prevented from promoting suicide in class. Nevertheless, the following year, the school district devices a curriculum about “end-of-life choice” to be taught to all the students.
Furthermore, the same textbook that was banned by court order is ‘revised’ by simply replacing the word suicide with end-of-life choice. Even the definitions for suicide and end-of-life choice are identical, if the old text and the new text are compared.
Will this parent be correct in assert that the “end-of-life choice” curriculum is a feeble attempt to get around the court order banning the promotion of suicide in government-run schools?
The Intelligent Design (ID) textbook has the same shortcomings. The textbook recommended by the Dover school board to the students in the mandatory ID statement was a creationist text revised after the Edwards decision made it illegal to teach “scientific creationism” in government schools. Even the definition for “scientific creationism” in the old textbook draft and the definition for “intelligent design” in the latest draft are the same.
How disingenuous is that?
Furthermore, the school board members were caught lying several times about the intent of the ID mandatory statement and the procurement of the ID textbooks, among other things.
These “intelligent design” Dover board members were not very intelligent. First of all, they were not very versed in the lingo of “intelligent design” and kept falling back into creationist mantras. Even worse, they were caught obfuscating, misrepresenting, and lying in court, while claming to serve the God whose Word is Truth.
As a Christian, I submit to you that these fired Dover board members did not represent my religion. The Bible say that the father of lies is the devil (John 8:44), and one of the seven things that the Lord hates is a lying tongue. (Proverbs 6:16,17) The judge wrote in his opinion:
In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students.
"The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."
Creationists and ID are doing all that with the theory. They observed it, identified it as an act of a being, described it, are currently experimenting in it, and have a theoretical explanation for it. I think that's science. But anyway, I'm not advocating teaching creation or even ID.
It isn't much to ask for. Just tell kids that there's another theory, evolution isn't proven fact, and briefly tell them the basics. I hope no one believes that evolution is a proven fact like gravity. It hasn't been tested or thoroughly proven. Creationism is a new field of study that's scrambling to establish itself. Even if just for political knowledge it would be a good thing for them to know what people are saying. This is becoming reminiscient of the Scopes trial.
As usual, another Rat tactic. Throw a blatantly false and dumb comment out there and act like it is true.
(You said) What's the inistance on law? We can't predict when and where hurricanes will be formed. There's no Law of Hurricanes. But we have a theory of hurricane formation (And it's not "Rain God angry")
Let me state my position a little differently. Science is filled with areas where we don't have an answer for questions. Saying "we just don't know" should be perfectly fine. We have the "law of gravity" which is a currently accepted, empirically proven cause and effect. The theory of gravity has many unknowns in it. No scientist or student should feel bad about admitting that we don't know certain things about how gravity works. So WHY is it so important to some people to avoid the things we don't know about how evolution works, and the many (quite large) gaps in the scientific theory of evolution. It is honest and correct to admit we don't have any empirical or ongoing evidence of non-life changing to life, of creatures evolving to a completely different species, etc. Evolution is still happening, so we should be able to see and prove creatures changing genus and species right now, under our current "theory of evolution". It's intellectually honest to admit when we JUST DON'T KNOW. Unless, of course, your religion of "evolutionism" does not permit you to do so.
Wow! sourced from the Discovery Institute. Quoting from the losing side on a trial verdict - not the most impartial source.
"Wow! sourced from the Discovery Institute. Quoting from the losing side on a trial verdict - not the most impartial source."
Can you disprove it?
We're talking about ID, blatantly false and dumb is definitely the right choice of words.
But a judge does? Be careful what you wish for; you just may get it.
Cordially,
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.