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
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.
Judge Jones is a George W. Bush appointee. The tyranny was the school board's.
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.
Thank God for private schools.
Judicial tyranny? Dave, come on, I don't think you believe that that description applies in this case!
No. That would be the theory of phlogiston.
Please read post 159.
Man one/God zero.
"No theory in science is ever proven.
You might want to tell some of these people who seem to believe that evolution is a scientifically 'proven' theory.
And your proposal is to replace it with an unbending faith instead of further scientific enquiry? That's simply unacceptable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 )
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.
Thank God my Catholic high school bio teacher (who was a nun) taught us evolution.
Thanks for the illuminating dialogue. Have a good one.
> 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
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe
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.
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...
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.