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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 3,351-3,391 next last
To: PatrickHenry
Judge Jones finds that “intelligent design” is not science.

Still reading; but this looks like the "wide" ruling.

101 posted on 12/20/2005 8:35:24 AM PST by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
A funny blog on Behe is here.

CAUTION: adult language.

102 posted on 12/20/2005 8:35:35 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ace of Spades

If we believe it is possible, then why do we try and prevent our students from learning such theories?

The Designer has given plenty of evidence of His might handiwork. And you can talk to Him anytime you'd like...it's just a matter of willingness.


103 posted on 12/20/2005 8:35:39 AM PST by justtryingtopassapenglish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Ace of Spades

If we believe it is possible, then why do we try and prevent our students from learning such theories?

The Designer has given plenty of evidence of His might handiwork. And you can talk to Him anytime you'd like...it's just a matter of willingness.


104 posted on 12/20/2005 8:35:44 AM PST by justtryingtopassapenglish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

"Yes, but God is not a testable theory."

Neither is evolution. In fact, evolution is not observable, reproducible, or predictive in nature, arguments that deliberately confuse macro-evolution and micro-evolution (or adaptation) to the contrary. Therefore, by definition, the Theory of Evolution is not valid science. It's the creation myth of atheists and is being propped up by a group of scientists that are terrified that someone's going to start paying attention to that man behind the curtain.


105 posted on 12/20/2005 8:35:48 AM PST by Shadowfax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC; saganite
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.

In other words, the judge ruled that Darwin's theory of evolution is NOT incompatable with "religion".

Now, there are many religious figures who assert that the theory of evolution IS incompatable with their religion. The judge said that HE knows their religion better than THEY do, and that Evolution is compatable with what I guess he considers "true religion".

This is NOT an argument over whether religion should be taught in schools -- the Judge ruled that the school board's argument was that evolution was an affront to religion, and that they were wrong about that.

I presume that this means the board's argument was in part based on the concept that a person shouldn't have their religion attacked when they attend a public school. The judge could have said that the state has every RIGHT to present facts that are in opposition to religious beliefs.

But the Judge, according to the sentence above, didn't say that the state could do so -- he said that teaching evolution did not present opposition to any religion.

So, in summary, the judge just said that, if your religious leaders say creation is true, and evolution is false, you simply are not a REAL religion, because evolution is compatable with "true religions", as determined by the United States of America.

If your religion opposes evolution, the United States (through this judge) says your religion isn't a real religion. They have established a basic tenet of REAL religion, which is that evolution is accepted.

That is what I mean by government establishing religion. They do the same when they argue that a Menorah is OK because it isn't a religious symbol, but the 10 commandments is forbidden because it is inherently a religious teaching. Thus giving the government "seal of approval" of the religion of christianity, while relegating other religions to a lesser status.

I like to illustrate this with a somewhat inaccurate example: You can burn the symbols of ANY religion in this country, except the one TRUE religion, which the government provides with a special protection not even afforded to our own american flag.

What do I speak of? Well, the ultimate symbol of the true religion, the Cross upon which our Lord and Savior died. You can't burn one of those and argue it's freedom of speech, we'll throw you in jail for 10 years for even ASSISTING in burning a cross.

When was the last time you heard of someone jailed for burning the symbols of any other religion?

106 posted on 12/20/2005 8:36:06 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: laxin4him
1. "If you try and believe that evolution and Christianity are compatible how do you explain the genealogy in Matthew that goes back all the way to Adam? If it is not literal history it would be a lie and thus the bible could be full of lies."

Evolutionary analysis of mitochondria (inherited by the mother only) and the Y-Chromosome (father only) has actually confirmed that there is at least one common male and one common female ancestor. (It can neither confirm, nor deny, that they existed at the same time; but, by default, the common ancestor would have parents, making this point moot.) It's called the "Y-Chromosome Adam" and "Mitochondrial Eve."

2. "It says Adam and Eve were the first humans but I guess it would be silly to trace it back before adam and include the monkees huh?"

One, monkeys ("monkees" are a singing group I think, but I can't spell, either) are not ancestors. The theory is that all primates have a common ancestor that is neither monkey, nor man.

But one starts with Adam and Eve, of course, because they ate from the tree of knowledge (in biological terms, became self-aware). Anything that came before would merely be an animal, and not man.
107 posted on 12/20/2005 8:36:28 AM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial.

Just what I wanted for Kitzmas.

108 posted on 12/20/2005 8:36:30 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
This is big. Very big.

Hugh, and series.

There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth at the Discovery Institute.

109 posted on 12/20/2005 8:36:49 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 100 | View Replies]

Comment #110 Removed by Moderator

To: VadeRetro
all the biology we've done since the late 19th century flunked Bio 101.

LOL!

111 posted on 12/20/2005 8:38:27 AM PST by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

Does from a scientific standpoint mean you can't replicate the conditions with an experiment and test it to find out if it is true?
"proving a God exists would hardly contradict the evidence in support of evolution. It would merely indicate that the God which exists is not the one you and others who take Genesis literally imagine to exist."
I guess it depends on what that god thought about evolution. Maybe the newly found god that was proved to exist could refute evolution. Maybe I am still confused.


112 posted on 12/20/2005 8:38:41 AM PST by laxin4him (They will know by our love not our picket lines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: justtryingtopassapenglish

I respect your beliefs. But faith is not fact.


113 posted on 12/20/2005 8:38:53 AM PST by Ace of Spades (Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
This ought not to have been unexpected. The faith based challenge to the teaching of evolution has been misconceived. The target ought to be not evolution as properly understood as a scientific doctrine of limited application beyond its purview, but: (1) the outlandish claims often made that evolution somehow disproves the existence of God and the core tenets of Christianity; and (2) the often extreme, de facto culture of philosophical materialism and amorality that is now embedded in the public schools.

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.

If nothing else, that would shift the terms of debate to a fight that we can win. 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. Eventually, we are going to have to seek either to have a voucher system and no publicly owned and run schools so that kids can have religion taught in schools, which current law would allow, or have the Supreme Court revise its precedents to allow nondenominational prayer and release time denominational instruction in the schools.
114 posted on 12/20/2005 8:39:07 AM PST by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth at the Discovery Institute.

Wailing as well. LOL!

115 posted on 12/20/2005 8:39:26 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: wolf24
You have a very narrow view of the scientific method, if you think all we do is vary x and measure y.
116 posted on 12/20/2005 8:39:26 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 110 | View Replies]

To: saganite
Intelligent design doesn't belong in science classes.

Neither does evolution when they try to teach it as fact, when it's merely an unproven theory.

117 posted on 12/20/2005 8:39:58 AM PST by Anti-MSM (Conservatives wish 9/11 never happened-liberals pretend it didn't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: justtryingtopassapenglish
If we believe it is possible, then why do we try and prevent our students from learning such theories?

The Nation of Islam believes the white race is the result of an ancient science experiment gone awry by a meddling scientist named Yacub.

You OK with teaching that in a public school?

118 posted on 12/20/2005 8:40:02 AM PST by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: saganite

"The constitution doesn't say anything about practicing your religion in a public school. "

Actually it mentions nothing of a public school either.
The Founders would not have approved of the nanny state leftist "public" school system.
They would be aghast at tax money being forcibly taken from citizens to fund a government education system.
We have moved so far from their intent it is laughable.


119 posted on 12/20/2005 8:40:05 AM PST by HereInTheHeartland (Never bring a knife to a gun fight, or a Democrat to do serious work...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: wolf24

I have not found any that can take all the variables into account. I forgot to add a little sarcasm to my original post that "evolution was the only scientifically proven 'theory'" Sorry for the confusion.


120 posted on 12/20/2005 8:40:18 AM PST by laxin4him (They will know by our love not our picket lines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: laxin4him

"I thought evoltion theory went all the way from the origin of the universe until today."

You did? Despite all the information to the contrary, as posted in ever thread here having anything to do with evolution?

Sorry. Use Google.


121 posted on 12/20/2005 8:41:04 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: laxin4him
So much for the civil liberties of free thought.

I guess the "Theory" of Evolution is the now the "Law" of Evolution without proper validation.
122 posted on 12/20/2005 8:41:19 AM PST by Sybeck1 (Dr. Adrian Rogers, September 12, 1931 - November 15, 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: gdani
The Nation of Islam believes the white race is the result of an ancient science experiment gone awry by a meddling scientist named Yacub.

Yes, and if they use the same "logic" as creationists, they're probably already printout out literature citing this as proof.

123 posted on 12/20/2005 8:41:28 AM PST by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Anti-MSM

"Neither does evolution when they try to teach it as fact, when it's merely an unproven theory."

1) ALL theories in science are unproven.

2) Evolution IS a fact(common descent); the Theory of Evolution is a description of how evolution happened.


124 posted on 12/20/2005 8:41:52 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: plewis1250
Evolution is a religion...

Are you trying to bring science down to the level of religion? Or trying to bring religion up to the level of science?

125 posted on 12/20/2005 8:41:55 AM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: justtryingtopassapenglish

so therefore we should keep it from being taught in public schools?

That is correct. Teach it in church where such teaching belongs. Don't try to force your religious beliefs on my children using the schools as you venue.


126 posted on 12/20/2005 8:42:04 AM PST by saganite (The poster formerly known as Arkie 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: plewis1250
Evolution is a religion...

To believe that garbage as FACT takes a whole new level of idiocy...

Ah, once again when a creationist wants to insult evolution he calls it a "religion."

I never get tired of that....

127 posted on 12/20/2005 8:42:09 AM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

Comment #128 Removed by Moderator

To: wolf24

"Again, this is not an attack. I'm just asking a simple question from a scientific method standpoint. "

Use Google. Read a book on evolutionary theory. Use your mind. Don't ask for scientific treatises here on Free Republic. Go learn.


129 posted on 12/20/2005 8:42:29 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Ace of Spades

Another case of judicial activism.


130 posted on 12/20/2005 8:44:20 AM PST by Kenny Bunkport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham

Your post is clearly written, but surely you understand that no public school teacher will be permitted to recommend that students speak to their parents about matters of "faith and morals".


131 posted on 12/20/2005 8:44:24 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Kjobs

Back to DU with you!


132 posted on 12/20/2005 8:45:00 AM PST by Kenny Bunkport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HereInTheHeartland

Your opinion of the current state of the education system isn't sufficient justification for assuming religion should be taught in those schools.


133 posted on 12/20/2005 8:45:04 AM PST by saganite (The poster formerly known as Arkie 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: King of Florida

Give me a freakin' break.


134 posted on 12/20/2005 8:45:38 AM PST by Kenny Bunkport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
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.

Well judge I agree -this is a false premise; however, the case was brought forward based upon reality and should be judged upon by reality -rejecting the false premise does nothing to allow the true premise to be heard each and every time evolution is taught religiously rather than scientifically.

135 posted on 12/20/2005 8:45:50 AM PST by DBeers ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #136 Removed by Moderator

To: RadioAstronomer
Good!

Next time, please just give us the Reader's Digest version of your comments; I don't have time to read lengthly essays like that.

;-)

137 posted on 12/20/2005 8:46:12 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: All
Help for new visitors to the evolution debate
Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.

If you're interested in learning about evolution, visit The List-O-Links.
If you're serious about debating this issue, see How to argue against a scientific theory.
If you're permanently stuck on stupid, but determined to post anyway, use the Evolution Troll's Toolkit.

138 posted on 12/20/2005 8:46:14 AM PST by PatrickHenry (... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Anti-MSM

Intelligent design doesn't belong in science classes.
Neither does evolution when they try to teach it as fact, when it's merely an unproven theory.

----

All. Of. Science. Is. Unproven.
Science doesnt deal in proofs. Mathematics does. EVERY SINGLE theory in science is tentative.


139 posted on 12/20/2005 8:46:21 AM PST by TheWormster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: gobucks; mikeus_maximus; MeanWestTexan; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; bondserv; plain talk; ...
(((Creationist Ping)))



You have been pinged because of your interest regarding matters of Creation vs. Evolution - from the Creationist perspective. Freep-mail me if you want on/off this list.

2 Peter 3:5 "But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed..."

140 posted on 12/20/2005 8:46:41 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (**THE FCC HAS EDITED THIS TAGLINE FOR CONTENT** M-rry Chr-stm-s!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunkport

Read the judgement he addresses your very statement quite well.


141 posted on 12/20/2005 8:46:44 AM PST by JNL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Shadowfax
evolution is not observable, reproducible, or predictive in nature, arguments that deliberately confuse macro-evolution and micro-evolution (or adaptation) to the contrary.

When "creation scientists" describe the mechanism that prevents so called "micro" evolution from continuing on to become "macro" evolution, let me know.

by definition, the Theory of Evolution is not valid science. It's the creation myth of atheists

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?

You might have some doctrinal problems with Catholics, but to slander them as "athiests" because they accept evolution is probably a bit much.

142 posted on 12/20/2005 8:47:03 AM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1
So much for the civil liberties of free thought.

This isn't a matter of free thought. You are certainly free to think whatever you like, as are the deposed Dover school board members.

The issue is whether they could sneak their religious agenda into science classes by promoting a stealth version and calling it "science." They can't.

This is a profoundly conservative decision. Words, after all, mean things.

143 posted on 12/20/2005 8:47:28 AM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

This is fantastic news! It's great to see a Bush appointed judge make the correct decision to keep whack-o's from forcibly inserting silly superstitions and charlatan hoaxes into science class over the common wisdom of the science teachers. hooray!!!


144 posted on 12/20/2005 8:47:36 AM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wolf24
"People often assert that the theory of evolution has been scientifically proven as true."

No theory in science is ever proven.
The lab experiment is not the only method used in science.
145 posted on 12/20/2005 8:47:40 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Ace of Spades

So all of Genesis? Or just what was written about Adam and Eve and creation? Just trying to understand what part of Genesis you don't believe.


146 posted on 12/20/2005 8:48:01 AM PST by laxin4him (They will know by our love not our picket lines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
The establishment cheered when Aristotle's theories were protected from "denigration" by the authorities too.

It's bizarre that the 14th Amendment overturned the First Amendment. Now we have federal Inquisitions that decide what can be spoken of in schools.

If God exercised as much power as a federal judge with the 14th Amendment we'd have no free will at all. Being wise He doesn't.

147 posted on 12/20/2005 8:48:04 AM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

The understanding of the human body, universe, and everything else that surrounds us is a little different than 1800 years ago.

"Now what person of intelligence will believe that the first and the second and the third day and the evening and the morning existed without the sun and moon and stars? And that the first day, if we may so call it, was even without a heaven? And who is so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, "planted a paradise eastward in Eden," and set in it a visible and palpable "tree of life," of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life; and again that one could partake of "good and evil" by masticating the fruit taken from the tree of that name? And when God is said to "walk in the paradise in the cool of the day" and Adam to hide himself behind a tree, I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history and not through actual events.
--Origen, On First Principles, Book IV, Chapter 3, Section 1

I am not that familiar with a lot of Origen's writings but thanks for bringing it up. Ace of Spades said it is just a myth concerning the geneology in Matthew. I was curious what Origin thought on that. I will check as well but was just curious. Thanks for the post.


148 posted on 12/20/2005 8:48:12 AM PST by laxin4him (They will know by our love not our picket lines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

Well, there's an intelligent remark, designed to win arguments.


149 posted on 12/20/2005 8:48:15 AM PST by Kenny Bunkport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: thejokker

> scientists win

Sort of. While I do not believe in the teaching of Creationism, I do think that the more scientifically based arguments against Darwinism should be explored. For example, the issue of irreducibile complexity ought to be explained to kids, if only to allow for the evoluationary answer to be put forward. A scientific theory which becomes immune to challenge cannot itself evolve and become stronger. Evolution needs to be questioned from a scientific basis if the theory is to be improved, and if the explanations it provides are to become more accepted.


150 posted on 12/20/2005 8:48:33 AM PST by MikeGranby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 3,351-3,391 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