Posted on 12/20/2005 12:12:16 PM PST by truthfinder9
So you admit that intelligent design isn't science, it's faith. Dont you teach your kids the Bible in Sunday School? Why force it on others as "science" because you cant effectively inculcate it in your kids without the power of the state.
Actually, it's barely been red in the last two presidental elections by massive voter fraud in Phily and Pittsburgh (i.e. bussing in the homeless, convicts, dead people).
So, why did they need a judge to decide anything? If the local taxpayers voted the folks out, that should have been their method of fixing the problem.
susie
That's immaterial. They can teach that red is blue and blue is red if they choose. They would be wrong and stupid, but it's not up to a judge to decide these things. I feel like I've fallen down the rabbit hole and into Wonderland!
susie
Actually, ID doesn't say anything about who the designer is. There are ID scientists from a variety of religions. Of course that probably wasn't in the talking points from Darwinian Fundie HQ.
And judges wouldnt be forced to if activists didnt try to redefine and dumbdown science by making the oral history of shepards the equivalent of the scientific method.
Some angry parents brought a lawsuit. You're right, the legal system should have never been a part of this.
Because the case was before the courts and pushed by ID activists that's why.
"The bottom line is judges should not be deciding what is taught in schools (and I would think this would be the conservative viewpoint). The local taxpayers should decide."
The judge isn't deciding what should be taught in the classroom--he's deciding what shouldn't. ID is for the simple-minded.
Since the time intelligence designed the first hypothesis?
"It's funny how the Darwin Fundies in the trial never addressed the science that the ID supporters presented."
And specifically what science would that be?
Again you prove your zero knowledge on the subject, because no ID books reference "the oral history of shepards" including the peer-reviewed ID book, "The Design Inference."
"But I thought there wasn't any peer-reviewed ID lit?"
Guess again.
Having an interest in intelligent design is fine. Studying it is fine. Fostering it on impressionabel kids as science is not. I enjoy listening to the Art Bell show, but that doesnt mean that I think the transistor was created by backengineering alien technology from Roswell. And Im going to give credit in school to the three PhDs at Bell Labs.
You're right about Art Bell. Now there's entertainment.
Try developing or discussing any tenants of intelligent design that conflict with "Genesis" in any way and you will realize that you are wrong.
You like this decision because you agree with the premise (ID is not science). However, do you believe judges should be deciding what is and isn't science??
susie
It's not scientific. And he didn't try to stop it's spread. Those people who seek to find a way to develop science to back up ID are still free to do so.
and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate,
Criticize it all you want. Debate it all you want. But such criticism and debate belongs in the scientific literature, not in the classroom. Until there's science to back up the teaching of ID, the only class it belongs in is one for philosophy or comparative religion.
and it won't work,"
Yes, it will. It'll work precisely as it should; find scientific evidence to back up religiously-based assertions and it'll get taught as science. Until then, it won't.
I'm tussling mightily with the logic of that statement!
susie
And it's freaking hilarious how the Genesis worshipers here never address how the "scientists [who] think ID is science" believe in evolution (including "descent from the ape") and testified to that at the Dover trial
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.