Skip to comments.Intelligent Design case decided - Dover, Pennsylvania, School Board loses [Fox News Alert]
Posted on 12/20/2005 7:54:38 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
click here to read article
Read the judgement he addresses your very statement quite well.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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.
Well, there's an intelligent remark, designed to win arguments.
> 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.
Nor does evolution. Evolution is one of the least supportable theories in existence. The fossil history is non-existent as are any examples of current evolution.
The core theory of evolution is that the progress of all life began with the "Big Bang". 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.
But if you want to whine, go ahead.
It's always activism when your side loses. Get a new line.
"Obviously the Judge flunked Bio 101. Evolution is predicated upon total randomness."
I don't know whether the judge failed Bio 101, but the second sentence shows that if you didn't, it's because you were "socially promoted" to get you out of your school's hair.
I know. I forgot to add the sarcasm to my original post. I thought I corrected it later but I guess not.
Is this your god ?
Have you taken a biology class in which evolution was taught "religiously rather than scientifically"? If so, please mention the school so I'll be able to advise my colleg-age relatives to avoid it.
2) Evolution IS a fact(common descent); the Theory of Evolution is a description of how evolution happened.
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. Are there any competing views taught?
In economics, we learn, to name a few, supply-side, Keynesian, and central control/Marxist economic models.
I'm ok with the teaching of evolution as a theory, but the secularists are clearly trying to teach it as fact.
Have a read of this thread:
Most of the arguments for and against, with links to additional material, are covered there. I think this thread is going to be a bit fast moving for anyone to spend time reiterating what has been covered before.
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.