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.
> Evolution sounds like faith instead of science.
That's a bit strong, but on the margins of cosmology, we are certainly getting into untestable theories that are created ex post facto to explain ever more detailed observations of the universe. Quite where one crosses the line into the realm of faith is far from clear.
I am also troubled by the fact that asserting that there is no God is apparently considered a non-religious statement and thus capable of being taught in schools, but that the refutation of this statement, or even the ackknowledgement of the arguments in that direction, are beyond the pale.
"When "creation scientists" describe the mechanism that prevents so called "micro" evolution from continuing on to become "macro" evolution, let me know."
When evolutionary scientists prove the mechanism that allows micro-evolution to continue on to become macro-evolution, you let us know. The burden of such proofs is on the proponents of the theory. At least, it is under sound scientific principles. Something that evolutionists seem to struggle with.
"You do realize that a great many Christians, not the least of which the entive Catholic Church, have acknowledged there is no conflict between the Bible and evolution?"
Stunning bit of scientific evidence there.....
"You might have some doctrinal problems with Catholics, but to slander them as "athiests" because they accept evolution is probably a bit much."
I didn't refer to them in any way shape or form as "atheists." You may wish to read more carefully. I described the theory of evolution as the creation myths of atheists. Because the Catholic Church has chosen to compromise their doctrine by attempting to merge the creation myth of another faith into their belief system is unfortunate. And it would be one of several doctrinal differences I have with the Catholic Church. Those differences are the main reason I left Catholicism.
That's not true. The ruling doesn't preclude the teaching of Lysenkoism, for example, or Lamarckism (which is actually very different). These are purely secular and scientific (albeit falsified) theories.
evolution satifies this definition of religion:
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
creationism also satisfies this one
1.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe
(source dictionary.com)
Especially now since the facts are still running ahead of the theories.
Learn to read. And lose the hysteria. It's unmanly.
Science does not prove theories the way math proves theorms.
There are many meanings of the word prove.
Biology uses the first definition and a variation of the third.
I think you've got it backwards, mrsmith. The Dover School Board, a political entity, decided that it was going to intervene in science classrooms and determine what will be taught there. That little spasm of bad judgment started this whole legal maelstrom.
People often assert that the theory of evolution has been scientifically proven as true.
I don't know that anyone has really been asserting that. Theories are never "proven as true." Not even germ theory, not even gravity, although I presume you don't have any difficulty with either of those theories.
I believe that the confusion arises from the use of the word "evolution." It describes more than just the Theory.
Evolution is both a theory and a fact. We can study populations and see natural selection at work. Scientists have observed populations in isolation (as did Darwin himself) and study how those populations adapt to their environments. That's the proven fact of which people might be speaking.
As for the theory, that's as sound as any other theory. It has supporting evidence to back it up, it is testable and falsifiable, and it makes predictions about future discoveries that continue to come true. That's as stong as the evidence for any theory gets.
I'm sorry if someone has been sloppy with their use of words, if that's the case. But it's important to understand that evolution has been proven on one scale, and the theory itself cannot be proven on another because that's not how theories work.
BTW, I didn't see the argument which was made in the posting which started this thread. But this makes it clear that this judge believes ID is a religion, that teaching ID "establishes" a religion, and therefore it would be unconstitutional to mention ID in a public school classroom.
So, ID is not an official state-established religion.
The Bible also says there are evenings and mornings. We better stop teaching THAT in science classrooms, since the judge seemed to say that proof of ID would not make it teachable.
Sorry. Will be more brief in the future. :-)
Science is not conservative or liberal... The factions on either side of the issue were moral conservative versus moral liberal and the issues go much deeper than the MSM suggest or the moral liberal attest to. This was not about attempting to restrict science it was about taking the muzzle off religion... Objectively this decision goes against the moral conservatives... As far as being profound -this is but another skirmish in a culture war and this battle may have been lost but the war is far from over -we are breeding! LOL
I don't think so.
At the time of the signing of the Constitution, New England governments required tithes collected from all citizens. If you were a member of a government authorized church, then the tithe went there. If you were not, it went to the official government church.
One of the things they did with the money was run schools. Granted, it was done by the church. But the church was the government back then, and this situation continued until about 1820, almost 30 years after the ratification of the First Amendment. The practice wasn't stopped because of an ACLU lawsuit, but because the churches turned over their work to secular governments to avoid conflicts because of doctrinal disputes.
Things have changed, but taking money by force from the citizens to pay for schools was done then, and done now.
Thanks for the ping. Judge apparently believes atheistic science is the only kind of science, and would prefer to have his beliefs alone supported by law.
From http://www.wral.com/education/5586914/detail.html
Said the judge: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.
Ah, but it is a religion...
You have to have FAITH in order for that theory to hold any shred of truth. No evidence exists for it, never has, and in my view, it never will. So you advocate the teaching of a baseless theory that requires faith, but to offer an alternate theory than the one you have your faith in, well you just cannot stand for that. Sounds a little hypocritical to me...
- plewis1250
And anybody who isn't vested in destroying religion, and who wants to understand why it is that otherwise "intelligent" people are so scared of the evolutionary movement, needs look no farther than this post and others here to see how Evolution is the key to the war against God and his followers on the Earth that he created.
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.