Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design case decided - Dover, Pennsylvania, School Board loses [Fox News Alert]
Fox News | 12/20/05

Posted on 12/20/2005 7:54:38 AM PST by snarks_when_bored

Fox News alert a few minutes ago says the Dover School Board lost their bid to have Intelligent Design introduced into high school biology classes. The federal judge ruled that their case was based on the premise that Darwin's Theory of Evolution was incompatible with religion, and that this premise is false.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: biology; creation; crevolist; dover; education; evolution; intelligentdesign; keywordpolice; ruling; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 3,381-3,391 next last
To: DaveLoneRanger
What the hey, we're used to judicial tyranny by now

Judge Jones is a George W. Bush appointee. The tyranny was the school board's.

161 posted on 12/20/2005 8:49:59 AM PST by Right Wing Professor (Liberals have hijacked science for long enough. Now it's our turn -- Tom Bethell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Then again, the literal interpretation of Genesis is already eviscerated by the scientific evidence. My point being that just because a God is proven to exist would hardly make the overwhelming evidence supporting the theory of evolution vanish. It would merely indicate that the God which exists is some God other than the one you imagine to exist.

Boy that sounds so similar to the creationist argument that no level of "proof" could convince them of their error, because they are just CERTAIN that they are correct.

If there is an all-powerful God, there is absolutely NOTHING known of evolution that can't completely be explained by God's actions, or that would be incompatable with a reading of a literal 6-day creation.

If God can create a human female out of a rib, He can create all the evidence of "evolution" needed to test the faith of his people.

I'm not arguing that He did, or He needs to, or even whether or not there is a reason to think it would have been done. I'm merely noting that your statement is inaccurate in the face of an all-powerful God.

162 posted on 12/20/2005 8:50:05 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: highball

Thank God for private schools.


163 posted on 12/20/2005 8:50:11 AM PST by Sybeck1 (Dr. Adrian Rogers, September 12, 1931 - November 15, 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: gdani

Bingo.


164 posted on 12/20/2005 8:50:11 AM PST by bonfire (dwindler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Judicial tyranny? Dave, come on, I don't think you believe that that description applies in this case!


165 posted on 12/20/2005 8:50:48 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: em2vn
Evolution is one of the least supportable theories in existence.

No. That would be the theory of phlogiston.

166 posted on 12/20/2005 8:50:54 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: TheWormster

Please read post 159.


167 posted on 12/20/2005 8:51:04 AM PST by Anti-MSM (Conservatives wish 9/11 never happened-liberals pretend it didn't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: nuffsenuff; zeeba neighba
What was the count.

Man one/God zero.

168 posted on 12/20/2005 8:51:06 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg (Semper eo pro iocus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #169 Removed by Moderator

To: em2vn

And your proposal is to replace it with an unbending faith instead of further scientific enquiry? That's simply unacceptable.


170 posted on 12/20/2005 8:52:00 AM PST by saganite (The poster formerly known as Arkie 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: em2vn
"The fossil history is non-existent as are any examples of current evolution."

Wildly wrong on both accounts.

"The core theory of evolution is that the progress of all life began with the "Big Bang"."

Nope, wrong theory.

"This is wildly mad if you consider that the singularity, from which the Big Bang arose, is expressed as a area the size of a ball point pen ball, in which all matter existed and none of the laws of physics applied.
One must ask as to where the singularity came from in the first instance.
Evolution sounds like faith instead of science."

Again, wrong theory. This is NOT evolution.
171 posted on 12/20/2005 8:52:04 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
and that material critical of evolution, when entered with the purpose of furthering ID, is in itself impermissible

Well, THAT sure sounds like a furthering of the scientific principle -- can't have any material critical of evolution in those science classes, since it is so OBVIOUS that any such material, however factually accurate, can only be introduced to further ID, since all real scientists wouldn't question anything about Evolution.

That statement is so bizarre that I actually doubt the ruling actually says it.

172 posted on 12/20/2005 8:52:09 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
The theory is that all primates have a common ancestor that is neither monkey, nor man.

That doesn't preclude the probability that they have a common ancestor that is entirely a monkey. I'm certain that many of our ancestors both prior to and after the last monkey-human common ancestor would be categorized as monkeys if we could see them today.

It's obviously true that the last common ancestor between chimps and humans was unarguably an ape. Consider: the last common ancestor of orangutans and the other apes existed before the last common ancestor of gorillas, chimps, and humans, which in turn existed before the last common ancestor of chimps and humans. So in order to say that the last ape-human common ancestor existed before there were any apes, you'd have to believe that orangutans, gorillas, and chimps somehow independently evolved into apehood sometime after the humans split off. That's ridiculous, hence, man evolved from ape.

173 posted on 12/20/2005 8:52:22 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Anti-MSM
If it's theory, then why don't they allow competing theories about how the world became what it is today.

Because there aren't any scientific ones.

There are plenty of creation myths that could be taught. But this shouldn't be the biology curriculum.

174 posted on 12/20/2005 8:52:49 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham
Hope for victory in the culture wars requires that we pick fights that we can and do win in the short term even as we aim at the larger cultural reformation that goes against current trends.

You are very correct.

As demonstrated during the last 150 years, evolution cannot be defeated, simply because it's true. Thus it is a waste of time for culture warriors to try.

There are a great many things Christians should be fighting for in the political realm, but attacks on evolution merely marginalize anyone making the attempt, and do more damage by shooting your own foot than to evolution.

175 posted on 12/20/2005 8:52:50 AM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: airforceF4
"ID has no peer review. Nor is it science. IMHO"

Peer review? Hahahahaha

" ...In recent years, much has been said about the post modernist claims about science to the effect that science is just another form of raw power, tricked out in special claims for truth-seeking and objectivity that really have no basis in fact. Science, we are told, is no better than any other undertaking. These ideas anger many scientists, and they anger me. But recent events have made me wonder if they are correct. We can take as an example the scientific reception accorded a Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist.

The scientific community responded in a way that can only be described as disgraceful. In professional literature, it was complained he had no standing because he was not an earth scientist. His publisher, Cambridge University Press, was attacked with cries that the editor should be fired, and that all right-thinking scientists should shun the press. The past president of the AAAS wondered aloud how Cambridge could have ever "published a book that so clearly could never have passed peer review." )But of course the manuscript did pass peer review by three earth scientists on both sides of the Atlantic, and all recommended publication.) But what are scientists doing attacking a press? Is this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists?

Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes." It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?

When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn't enough, he put the critics' essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down.

Further attacks since have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That's why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That's why the facts don't matter. That's why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He's a heretic.

Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I'd see the Scientific American in the role of mother church.

Is this what science has become? I hope not. But it is what it will become, unless there is a concerted effort by leading scientists to aggressively separate science from policy. The late Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said that "Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference-science and the nation will suffer." Personally, I don't worry about the nation. But I do worry about science." ~

Michael Crichton ( Excerpted from his lecture at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA - January 17, 2003 )

176 posted on 12/20/2005 8:52:55 AM PST by Matchett-PI ( "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." -- Dwight Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham
Here's the beginning of a solution that the ACLU and the public schools would hate but be hard put to dispute. Require that every public school regularly and expressly warn their students and parents: "Current federal court rulings mean that we cannot teach religion or matters of faith and morals. Students, ask your parents and follow their teachings. Parents, teach your students about faith and morals." Post that in every student and parent handbook, in every textbook, and in every classroom. And, in the biology texts, put in a similar warning that evolution should not be taken as refuting religious faith.

It isn't that I disagree with the premise of your solution, but should that even be necessary? Do you really think that parents of schoolchildren should expect anything different? I mean really, I don't know of any sane person who expects that schools (public, not parochial) teach faith and morals.

177 posted on 12/20/2005 8:53:25 AM PST by Chiapet (Two eyebrows are always better than one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1

Thank God my Catholic high school bio teacher (who was a nun) taught us evolution.


178 posted on 12/20/2005 8:53:46 AM PST by Ace of Spades (Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Anti-MSM
"That's my point, though. If it's theory, then why don't they allow competing theories about how the world became what it is today."

ID isn't a competing theory. It's a philosophical position, not a scientific one. Science class should only have scientific theories.
179 posted on 12/20/2005 8:53:49 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

Comment #180 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 3,381-3,391 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
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

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