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: GregoTX

"So now it is going to be unlawful to read a classroom as statement that their is some problems with ToE"

Oh, my. "their is some problems, " eh? I'll say there are some problems, and they aren't with evolution. Perhaps we need better instruction in English in our schools.


51 posted on 12/20/2005 8:18:16 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: bubman

Those who think creation precludes evolution can check back here also.


52 posted on 12/20/2005 8:18:18 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Shall we debate here what is and what is not 'religion'? Resolved; a statement of faith, "I believe", is sufficient to establish a religion.

I believe in the precision and accuracy of my perception of the universe.


53 posted on 12/20/2005 8:18:51 AM PST by dhuffman@awod.com (The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

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. 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?

Not sure how it would eviscerate Genesis being literal history though. Maybe you could help me on that one.


54 posted on 12/20/2005 8:18:56 AM PST by laxin4him (They will know by our love not our picket lines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
Good! I'm sick and tired of these people trying to put this religious ID or creation stuff in empirical science.

I guess the ID/Creationism nightmare is coming true. Actual scientific theories based on facts will be taught in the science classroom.

55 posted on 12/20/2005 8:18:58 AM PST by hawkaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: airforceF4

I agree, but he "decided" in the legal sense, in his "decision."


56 posted on 12/20/2005 8:19:05 AM PST by BikerNYC (Modernman should not have been banned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: sausageseller

> BTW ,Your post is moronic.

Watch your language, please.

I applaud the decision.


57 posted on 12/20/2005 8:19:05 AM PST by cloud8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage

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.


58 posted on 12/20/2005 8:19:11 AM PST by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
Merry Kitzmas to you!
59 posted on 12/20/2005 8:19:30 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
This is about as comprehensive a defeat for ID as one could have wished for. The decision clearly states you can't separate ID from its creationist antecedents; and that material critical of evolution, when entered with the purpose of furthering ID, is in itself impermissible.

This is a 70-zip blowout.

60 posted on 12/20/2005 8:19:32 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 1 | View Replies]

To: bulldozer

How is that?


61 posted on 12/20/2005 8:19:36 AM PST by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design'

By MARTHA RAFFAELE, AP Education Writer 11 minutes ago

"Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.

The Dover Area School Board violated the Constitution when it ordered that its biology curriculum must include "intelligent design," the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled Tuesday.

The school board policy, adopted in October 2004, was believed to have been the first of its kind in the nation.

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy," Jones wrote. "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."

The board's attorneys said members sought to improve science education by exposing students to alternatives to Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection causing gradual changes over time; intelligent-design proponents argue that it cannot fully explain the existence of complex life forms.

The plaintiffs argued that intelligent design amounts to a secular repackaging of creationism, which the courts have already ruled cannot be taught in public schools.

The Dover policy required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement said Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook, "Of Pandas and People," for more information.

Jones said advocates of intelligent design "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors" and that he didn't believe the concept shouldn't be studied and discussed.

"Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom," he wrote.

The dispute is the latest chapter in a long-running debate over the teaching of evolution dating back to the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, in which Tennessee biology teacher John T. Scopes was fined $100 for violating a state law that forbade teaching evolution. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed his conviction on the narrow ground that only a jury trial could impose a fine exceeding $50, and the law was repealed in 1967.

Jones heard arguments in the fall during a six-week trial in which expert witnesses for each side debated intelligent design's scientific merits. Other witnesses, including current and former school board members, disagreed over whether creationism was discussed in board meetings months before the curriculum change was adopted.

The controversy also divided the community and galvanized voters to oust eight incumbent school board members who supported the policy in the Nov. 8 school board election. They were replaced by a slate of eight opponents who pledged to remove intelligent design from the science curriculum.

The case is among at least a handful that have focused new attention on the teaching of evolution in the nation's schools.

Earlier this month, a federal appeals court in Georgia heard arguments over whether evolution disclaimer stickers placed in a school system's biology textbooks were unconstitutional. A federal judge in January ordered Cobb County school officials to immediately remove the stickers, which called evolution a theory, not a fact.

In November, state education officials in Kansas adopted new classroom science standards that call the theory of evolution into question.

___

Martha Raffaele covers education for The Associated Press in Harrisburg.


62 posted on 12/20/2005 8:19:43 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage
Obviously the Judge flunked Bio 101. Evolution is predicated upon total randomness. Mutations are random, micro- and macroevolution are random, Miller and Urey origin of life needs no procreator - it was a random event (even though their work has been proven to be totally false).

I don't know about Bio 101, but I think you just flunked Evolutionary Theory 101.

63 posted on 12/20/2005 8:20:22 AM PST by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: laxin4him
how do you explain the genealogy in Matthew that goes back all the way to Adam?

Easy. It's mythology, no better or worse than the Greek, Roman, Norse or Egyptian variety.

64 posted on 12/20/2005 8:20:37 AM PST by Ace of Spades (Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions. Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

Emphasis mine. On to Kansas!

65 posted on 12/20/2005 8:21:12 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 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Link to the court's 139 page (pdf file) opinion: Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District.

Very slow to load, for obvious reasons.

66 posted on 12/20/2005 8:21:19 AM PST by PatrickHenry (... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I have it. Want me to post it on a mirror?


67 posted on 12/20/2005 8:21:48 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 66 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I have it. Want me to post it on a mirror?


68 posted on 12/20/2005 8:21:50 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 66 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
Dover School Board lost their bid to have Intelligent Design introduced into high school biology classes.

Good.

69 posted on 12/20/2005 8:23:35 AM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laxin4him
Not sure how it would eviscerate Genesis being literal history though. Maybe you could help me on that one.

Sorry, I didn't phrase myself well. From a scientific standpoint Genesis as literal history has already been gutted, sliced, diced, and incinerated. My actual point was that 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.

70 posted on 12/20/2005 8:23:54 AM PST by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: laxin4him; Ace of Spades

I am pretty ignorant when it comes to the scientific experiments that have been conducted on evolution.

Could someone please describe for me the parameters of the scientific experiments that have been conducted that prove evolution theory to be correct (i.e., dependent variable, independent variable, controls for internal validity, external validity, etc.).

Or, could you direct me to a source that describes these things? Thanks in advance.


71 posted on 12/20/2005 8:24:04 AM PST by wolf24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Physicist

And back to you as well my friend. :-)


72 posted on 12/20/2005 8:24:11 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Way cool. :-)


73 posted on 12/20/2005 8:24:40 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Ace of Spades

Ditto...great decision. Intelligent decision.


74 posted on 12/20/2005 8:25:08 AM PST by Vaquero ("An armed society is a polite society" R. A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: saganite
Yes, intelligent design is the mainstream belief among most Christians...so therefore we should keep it from being taught in public schools? There is absolutely no logic in that stance. Could it not be argued that we ARE limiting someone's right to freedom of religion by forcing one set of beliefs/theories on them? In this case, these beliefs do form a sort of religion, and this religion is being forced upon students as the one and only religion.
Intelligent Design goes beyond the church. Much of the evidence used to support these evolution theories (which is exactly what they are, theories, not facts) can, conversely, be used to support Intelligent Design.
Take the bat wing. For quite some time, evolutionists have chosen to compare the similar framework between the bat's wing and the human's arm and call it yet another case of evolution. But could it not be that an almighty being used a design that works in two different species? Doesn't an architect use similar designs in more than one building?
75 posted on 12/20/2005 8:25:57 AM PST by justtryingtopassapenglish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage
Of course Darwinism is incompatible with religion.

No, it is not. Many religious people think that Evolution was the means by which God created Man.

Please, you might not agree with Catholicism, but surely you aren't going to tell me that the Pope is not religious, are you? Are you then saying that Catholicism is not a religion?

76 posted on 12/20/2005 8:26:51 AM PST by Paradox (Time to sharpen ole Occam's Razor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage
Evolution is predicated upon total randomness.

Yeah, that's right. In "survival of the fittest", it's totally random what's fit, and what's not.

77 posted on 12/20/2005 8:26:53 AM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: cloud8

My post was about his comments, not the case!
As far as "watching my language" take it up with the mods!
They need a good laugh!


78 posted on 12/20/2005 8:27:47 AM PST by sausageseller (Look out for the jackbooted spelling police. There! Everywhere!(revised cause the "man" accosted me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage

1. "Evolution is predicated upon total randomness."

Not really. Suvival of the fittest may appear random (and to any given member of a population it would effectively be so), but if a condition that favored one trait over the another was put into effect by an outside force (say, like God sending an asteroid, or a farmer breeding a certain color plant, for example) it would be "directed" evolution, and not random at all.

2. "Miller and Urey origin of life needs no procreator - it was a random event (even though their work has been proven to be totally false)."

This is a bit of a red herring. Darwin's book was called "On the Origin of Species." His theory starts with existing life and delves not into the origin of life.

3. "Of course Darwinism is incompatible with religion. It is secular by design. No God is needed in their world. In fact a God, if proven, would eviscerate their theory."

Well, you disagree with the Roman Catholic Church (which is a fair thing to do; I do often, as well).

But certainly, this Chistian sees a God needed in a world whose present state was brought about by evolution. God made the world and the natural laws, which result in evolution, just as God designed the universe to do.

Science merely describes WHAT and HOW God did what He did. It does not delve into WHY.

It is no more incompatible with a creator than looking to see how yeast makes bread rise is incompatible with there being a baker of bread.

As oft-repeated similar example, scientists have shown that the Red Sea parts very dramatically when the tide is just so, the moon just so, water level just so, and wind blowing from the East at a certain speed.

Religious folk attack it as blasphemy.
Secularist hold it up as evidence that Moses performed no miracle.

A religious scientist says, "Wow. The miracle was in the timing of doing that just as Moses showed up and stopping just as the last Jew finished crossing."

It is the same with evolution. It is merely a glimpse of God's wonderful universe.


79 posted on 12/20/2005 8:27:53 AM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: wolf24
I am pretty ignorant when it comes to the scientific experiments that have been conducted on evolution

Later. Today we party. Tomorrow we teach.

80 posted on 12/20/2005 8:27:57 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 71 | View Replies]

To: justtryingtopassapenglish
But could it not be that an almighty being used a design that works in two different species? Doesn't an architect use similar designs in more than one building?

Of course it's possible. I can talk to an architect concerning his designs and intentions. Has anyone had an interview with the Designer?

81 posted on 12/20/2005 8:28:05 AM PST by Ace of Spades (Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Ace of Spades

Which part is Mythology? Jesus or everything written in the bible?

So if archeologists discovered many of the sites, names and history that was written in the bible would that just make it a coincidence? I think some of the stories are hard to believe but it is much harder to believe that something came from nothing.


82 posted on 12/20/2005 8:28:19 AM PST by laxin4him (They will know by our love not our picket lines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: laxin4him
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.

This is what the most brilliant theologian (so far as I'm concerned) in the history of Christianity said about 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

If he could figure it out from the state of science back in the Roman era, I see no reason why anyone should have a problem with it today.

83 posted on 12/20/2005 8:28:35 AM PST by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Want me to post it on a mirror?

That would be very useful.

84 posted on 12/20/2005 8:28:48 AM PST by PatrickHenry (... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
I look forward to reading the decision. Sounds like a blow against faux-Christian Bible-idolatry, but whether it's a clear-cut victory for science remains to be seen.

Can I post a spoiler from the conclusion? ;)

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. 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.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. 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. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

85 posted on 12/20/2005 8:29:07 AM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
"Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.

And having read this, surely ID probably DOES deserve mention in a biology class, and it should be given all the time it is due, say, 1 to 5 minutes, and then left at that.

86 posted on 12/20/2005 8:29:30 AM PST by Paradox (Time to sharpen ole Occam's Razor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: bulldozer

When it is God's hand which is holding atoms together, which is the reason God belongs in the science classroom.

Yes, but God is not a testable theory. Science does not seek to prove or disprove God. God is beyond our small understanding of the universe. And science is a tool that we use to probe and understand our tiny corner of God's universe. That's all it is; it is not a commentary on the nature or existence of God. And, secondly, why on earth would you want public school teachers teaching religion to your kids? I sure as heck don't.

87 posted on 12/20/2005 8:29:53 AM PST by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: laxin4him

Everything written in the Bible? No. Genesis? Yes. When they dig up the bones of Adam and the ruins of Eden, I'll be proven wrong.


88 posted on 12/20/2005 8:30:18 AM PST by Ace of Spades (Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks for the link PH!


89 posted on 12/20/2005 8:30:18 AM PST by Chiapet (Two eyebrows are always better than one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; PatrickHenry

Here's a mirror:

http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/main_docs/kitzmiller_342.pdf


90 posted on 12/20/2005 8:30:31 AM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks for the ping!


91 posted on 12/20/2005 8:31:01 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The text of Judge Jones' ruling.
92 posted on 12/20/2005 8:31:19 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 84 | View Replies]

To: JNL

Evolution is a religion...
To believe that garbage as FACT takes a whole new level of idiocy...
- plewis1250


93 posted on 12/20/2005 8:31:25 AM PST by plewis1250 (Not taking this evolutionist agenda....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

Sorry for mixing names. Who are the people who deal with the origins of life? I thought evoltion theory went all the way from the origin of the universe until today.


94 posted on 12/20/2005 8:32:09 AM PST by laxin4him (They will know by our love not our picket lines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage
"Obviously the Judge flunked Bio 101. Evolution is predicated upon total randomness. "

Obviously YOU flunked Bio 101, because natural selection is not at all random.

"Miller and Urey origin of life needs no procreator - it was a random event (even though their work has been proven to be totally false)."

Nope, it wasn't false.

" It is secular by design. No God is needed in their world."

No God is needed in ANY scientific theory. Evolution is in great company.
95 posted on 12/20/2005 8:32:13 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

radical extremists lose, scientists win...


96 posted on 12/20/2005 8:32:37 AM PST by thejokker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

A simple idea which some (most?) on FreeRepublic fail to comprehend. A former tagline of mine comes to mind, somewhat edited "Just because we (science) are not perfect, does not mean we are not good."

97 posted on 12/20/2005 8:32:57 AM PST by Paradox (Time to sharpen ole Occam's Razor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: laxin4him
scientificly proven "theory" Oxymoron Alert!

No such thing. If it's proven then it's not a theory. If it's a theory it's not yet proven.

Evolution is the only government approved religion.
98 posted on 12/20/2005 8:33:07 AM PST by The Lumster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC

Have you read any of the treatises on ID? Highly scientific (even if you disagree with their premise and conclusion) and do not belong on the "Religious" shelves at the bookstores.


99 posted on 12/20/2005 8:33:24 AM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Liberals are blind. They are the dupes of Leftists who know exactly what they're doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Thanks for the mirror posting. I've got it downloaded on my hard drive now. This is big. Very big.


100 posted on 12/20/2005 8:34:17 AM PST by PatrickHenry (... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | 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