Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Revote today [Dover, PA school board]
York Daily Record [Penna] ^ | 03 January 2006 | TOM JOYCE

Posted on 01/03/2006 12:12:37 PM PST by PatrickHenry

Also today, Dover's board might revoke the controversial intelligent design decision.

Now that the issue of teaching "intelligent design" in Dover schools appears to be played out, the doings of the Dover Area School Board might hold little interest for the rest of the world.

But the people who happen to live in that district find them to be of great consequence. Or so board member James Cashman is finding in his final days of campaigning before Tuesday's special election, during which he will try to retain his seat on the board.

Even though the issue that put the Dover Area School District in the international spotlight is off the table, Cashman found that most of the people who are eligible to vote in the election still intend to vote. And it pleases him to see that they're interested enough in their community to do so, he said.

"People want some finality to this," Cashman said.

Cashman will be running against challenger Bryan Rehm, who originally appeared to have won on Nov. 8. But a judge subsequently ruled that a malfunctioning election machine in one location obliges the school district to do the election over in that particular voting precinct.

Only people who voted at the Friendship Community Church in Dover Township in November are eligible to vote there today.

Rehm didn't return phone calls for comment.

But Bernadette Reinking, the new school board president, said she did some campaigning with Rehm recently. The people who voted originally told her that they intend to do so again, she said. And they don't seem to be interested in talking about issues, she said. Reinking said it's because they already voted once, already know where the candidates stand and already have their minds made up.

Like Cashman, she said she was pleased to see how serious they are about civic participation.

Another event significant to the district is likely to take place today, Reinking said. Although she hadn't yet seen a copy of the school board meeting's agenda, she said that she and her fellow members might officially vote to remove the mention of intelligent design from the school district's science curriculum.

Intelligent design is the idea that life is too complex for random evolution and must have a creator. Supporters of the idea, such as the Discovery Institute in Seattle, insist that it's a legitimate scientific theory.

Opponents argue that it's a pseudo-science designed solely to get around a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that biblical creationism can't be taught in public schools.

In October 2004, the Dover Area School District became the first in the country to include intelligent design in science class. Board members voted to require ninth-grade biology students to hear a four-paragraph statement about intelligent design.

That decision led 11 district parents to file a lawsuit trying to get the mention of intelligent design removed from the science classroom. U.S. Middle District Court Judge John E. Jones III issued a ruling earlier this month siding with the plaintiffs. [Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al..]

While the district was awaiting Jones' decision, the school board election took place at the beginning of November, pitting eight incumbents against a group of eight candidates opposed to the mention of intelligent design in science class.

At first, every challenger appeared to have won. But Cashman filed a complaint about a voting machine that tallied between 96 to 121 votes for all of the other candidates but registered only one vote for him.

If he does end up winning, Cashman said, he's looking forward to doing what he had in mind when he originally ran for school board - looking out for students. And though they might be of no interest to news consumers in other states and countries, Cashman said, the district has plenty of other issues to face besides intelligent design. Among them are scholastic scores and improving the curriculum for younger grades.

And though he would share the duties with former opponents, he said, he is certain they would be able to work together.

"I believe deep down inside, we all have the interest and goal to benefit the kids," he said.

Regardless of the turnout of today's election, Reinking said, new board members have their work cut out for them. It's unusual for a board to have so many new members starting at the same time, she said.

"We can get to all those things that school boards usually do," she said.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: bow2thestate; commonsenseprevails; creationisminadress; creationisthisseyfit; crevolist; dover; downwithgod; elitism; fundiemeltdown; goddooditamen; godlesslefties; nogod4du; victory4thelefties; weknowbest4you
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400 ... 1,051-1,070 next last
To: Zack Nguyen

If you poke an IDer enough, eventually they will (probably 99+%) say God is the designer. The aliens or space hippies are a red herring. Somewhere less than 15 billion years ago life arose somewhere, and probably many millions of somewheres. At each of those origin events there is only one question: Did that life arise by natural chemical mechanisms (i.e. Abiogenesis), or was it zapped into its designed existence by a god? These are the only two choices as I see it. The designer of ID is a god, or there is no God involved in the origin of life, and subsequently evolution.

If there are other possibilities, I'd like to hear them.


301 posted on 01/03/2006 8:15:29 PM PST by furball4paws (The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: pby
[Lucy] You have to admit... She is much better looking in the artist renderings.

I actually like bones. I did a lot of years in grad school working with all manner of human and fossil bones; with several classes in evolution, human races, osteology, primates, advanced osteology, anatomy, even animal bones.

I prefer them to be clean and dry, however. Two or three thousand years is just about right.

302 posted on 01/03/2006 8:16:49 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
I see. So the Intelligent part of Inteligent Design is merely a figment of my imagination.

You clearly do not understand (and I am not sure you want to)

303 posted on 01/03/2006 8:20:34 PM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Aw, c'mon C-man. If you were offered the opportunity to go and dig in the hot spot of Africa, I think I'd hear your bags packing from the hundreds of miles that separate us.


304 posted on 01/03/2006 8:22:39 PM PST by furball4paws (The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
So what is your take on Lucy?

I have read that she was a small primate with rickets/arthritis, or something in that vein and that she was not peer-reviewed until several years after her discovery.

You know...Bones of Contention.

305 posted on 01/03/2006 8:24:10 PM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog

I think I understand much better than you'd be willing to admit.

Why are you afraid to admit the designer is God?


306 posted on 01/03/2006 8:24:27 PM PST by furball4paws (The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
Aw, c'mon C-man. If you were offered the opportunity to go and dig in the hot spot of Africa, I think I'd hear your bags packing from the hundreds of miles that separate us.

Africa? Hot spot? Snakes? You must be joking.

I have figured out a way to do archaeology on the California coast; winter lasts about a week, in a bad year. No packed bags here, sorry!

307 posted on 01/03/2006 8:28:22 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
Don't forget Behe's take - God may be the designer, but then again, God may be dead. Rather Nietzschean, I guess ;)
308 posted on 01/03/2006 8:28:32 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
I think I understand much better than you'd be willing to admit. Why are you afraid to admit the designer is God?

I think you may think you know more than you do - I am not afraid to admit anything. ID could expose a designer or it could expose intelligence in the form of seeding from another planet. I call them like I see them and in this context - hopefully - dogma-free (be it the dogma of religion or the dogma of materialism)

309 posted on 01/03/2006 8:32:29 PM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow

I've poked a number of these guys. They are so afraid to admit that God is the designer. But it's a good bet that that is exactly what they think. Why? The only answer I can see is political. To admit that God is the designer makes ID a religious concept and that means that it can't gain traction in public schools. But everyone can see the emperor has no clothes on. It's really kind of sad.

Why not punt and come back with something that makes more sense and is not so blantantly obvious?


310 posted on 01/03/2006 8:34:00 PM PST by furball4paws (The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog

"ID could expose a designer or it could expose intelligence in the form of seeding from another planet."

Can't you see this answers nothing. It just removes the question from Earth to another planet. No matter how many seedings you try, sooner or later, you get back to the original beginning.

Then what are your choices?


311 posted on 01/03/2006 8:37:10 PM PST by furball4paws (The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
There is little to support DP other than conjecture, but there are also few nails in its coffin.

And it just shifts the question from here to there.

Does God have a spacecraft?

312 posted on 01/03/2006 8:37:15 PM PST by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

"And it just shifts the question from here to there."

And Crick was quick to point this out. He always said conditions may have been better elsewhere.

"Does God have a spacecraft?"

Would he need one? If so I guess he could zap one into existence or get one of his space alien minions to do it for him.


313 posted on 01/03/2006 8:41:20 PM PST by furball4paws (The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
Why not bail? Simple, my man - they're still convinced this thing is a winner, as long as they maintain this "it might have been magic space elves" fig leaf. I know better, you know better, they know better, but I suspect they think they can still sell it in Peoria.
314 posted on 01/03/2006 8:44:21 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: pby
So what is your take on Lucy?

I have read that she was a small primate with rickets/arthritis, or something in that vein and that she was not peer-reviewed until several years after her discovery.

You know...Bones of Contention.

Lucy seems to be a pretty good find. Certainly a very small primate, but she looks to have been bipedal. Somewhere on the direct line or very close. There is a lot of good data there (about 40% complete) and there have now been some 30+ years to digest and evaluate the discovery.

The rickets/arthritis idea does not seem credible. That's the same explanation initially given for the first Neanderthal (from the Neander Valley in Germany, something like 1856). The disease theory was based largely on the strangeness and unfamiliarity of the bones, and was discarded almost immediately. I have never seen anything on Lucy that suggest any such.

And let me assure you, the fossil casts of Lucy have been examined by just about every good paleontologist in the world, along with many folks in related sciences (I examined many of the older fossil man casts in school, but not Lucy). Any of these folks would love to make a name for themselves by finding something the discoverers missed and publishing it--a true "gocha" moment.

I think you can take the recent published literature pretty much at face value. That is not to say there is no contention over nomenclature or exact placement in the family tree, or that new finds may not shed more light on the exact placement of Lucy, but the differences are being worked out with a lot of study and discussion. That's the nature of science.

315 posted on 01/03/2006 8:49:46 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
So, you're one of those lily livered, ivory tower, stay at home in the lab types, huh? Afraid of a little field work? There's plenty of snakes in California, especially of the leftist bent. Don't want to sweat? Don't want to get dirty? What's a little cobra venom compared to the discovery of a life time?

No pain, no gain.

C'mon, C-man. Can't you hear the australopithecines calling? C'mon, now admit you are just a little intrigued. And to top it off you'll get the girl in the end (remember Indiana Jones?). Of course, in Ethiopia her measurements are likely to be 16-16-16, but in the dark....
316 posted on 01/03/2006 8:54:27 PM PST by furball4paws (The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
Of course, in Ethiopia her measurements are likely to be 16-16-16, but in the dark....

....you'll probably mistake her for a broomstick, with measurements like that. ;)

317 posted on 01/03/2006 8:56:57 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Also, given your educational background and experience, what is your take on the Hominid fossil KP 271...4.4 million years old with a fully modern humerus bone?

"The humeral fragment from Kanopoi, with a date of about 4.4 million years, could not be distinguished by Patterson and myself in 1967 (or by much more searching and analysis by others since then). We suggest that it might represent Australpithecus because at that time allocation Homo seemed proposterous, although it would be the correct one without the time element".(Bones of Contention, Lubenow, Dec. 1992, pp. 56-57)

318 posted on 01/03/2006 8:58:02 PM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Wow, all the creationists are quoting that same one passage from the 139-page decision, and bolding the same wrong phrase. Which creationist website are you all parroting from?

Here's the key phrase you should really be bolding:

to protect a religious view from what the Board considers to be a threat
The "remind schoolchildren" part isn't a problem, and the judge (and Constitution)) wouldn't have any problem with it if that had been all the "disclaimer" was. However, what you're "forgetting" is the rest of the testimony and decision, which overwhelmingly demonstrates that the clear intent and result of the "disclaimer" and "ID textbook" was, and I quote, "to protect a religious view from what the Board considers to be a threat". *That* is the part you should boldface when you quote that passage, because it's the key phrase, the one that makes the "disclaimer" unconstitutional. Read the whole decision (instead of the creationist websites and their spin) if you're still unclear.
319 posted on 01/03/2006 8:58:18 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: dread78645
I've got it, thanks to you. It's the new and improved:

Noah's Space Ark

320 posted on 01/03/2006 9:00:31 PM PST by furball4paws (The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
TOE is still just a theory.

ROFL! That one's so lame that even Answers In Genesis tells creationists that they should stop using it.

Prove to me humans descended from ape-like creatures.

Okay: Here you go.

321 posted on 01/03/2006 9:01:25 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow

But, but, she's a beauty queen.


322 posted on 01/03/2006 9:02:05 PM PST by furball4paws (The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

fellatious?


323 posted on 01/03/2006 9:03:38 PM PST by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
It seems that Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist used the actual Constitution, not the "living" version used by Judge Jones.

Wow! You obviously haven't bothered to read the decision by Jones, but that doesn't stop you from posting your fanatasies about it.

324 posted on 01/03/2006 9:04:01 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
So, you're one of those lily livered, ivory tower, stay at home in the lab types, huh? Afraid of a little field work? There's plenty of snakes in California, especially of the leftist bent. Don't want to sweat? Don't want to get dirty? What's a little cobra venom compared to the discovery of a life time?

No pain, no gain.

It's actually not that bad. I spend a lot of time in the field--a lot of it in the real wilderness--and have even developed a very good recipe for rattlesnake. The problem with them is, unless you get a really big, fat one, they are way too bony to bother with.

But they make a nice hatband on the Stetson.

Dirty? You want dirt? Shower with an archaeologist!

325 posted on 01/03/2006 9:04:17 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Thank you for the response.


326 posted on 01/03/2006 9:04:57 PM PST by pby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

You wrote: "First, human intelligence took the raw materials and, assembled the technology and substance needed to make X-rays. Second, although unseen, all the particles necessary to complete this process and make it repeatable have remained organized and consistent so as to make the application of human intelligence possible. "

Reply:
You seem to have an odd view. Is it your view that X-rays did not exist before Roentgen discovered them?

I cannot fathom what you mean by 'organized matter'. A snow crystal is highly organized. A mammalian blasosphere in utero is highly organized and develops into a fetus, seemingly contrary to the 2nd law. X-rays and gamma rays are evident in the universe beyond earth. I do not understand your point.


327 posted on 01/03/2006 9:07:02 PM PST by thomaswest (just curious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

I live in the wilderness and spend a lot of time at 12,000+ ft, hauling equipment. You can't do more than a few miles a day with a load at that altitude.

I always tell myself, "No pain, no gain". And after my lab work fizzles I wonder whether there ever will be any gain.

I don't think very many people understand that to be an experimental scientist, you have to be ready to deal with a lot of frustration.


328 posted on 01/03/2006 9:11:07 PM PST by furball4paws (The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: pby
Also, given your educational background and experience, what is your take on the Hominid fossil KP 271...4.4 million years old with a fully modern humerus bone?

"The humeral fragment from Kanopoi, with a date of about 4.4 million years, could not be distinguished by Patterson and myself in 1967 (or by much more searching and analysis by others since then). We suggest that it might represent Australpithecus because at that time allocation Homo seemed proposterous, although it would be the correct one without the time element".(Bones of Contention, Lubenow, Dec. 1992, pp. 56-57)

The elbow (distal humerous) like KP 271, by itself, is not much good for fine definition. There are a lot of other parts of the body which are much better-teeth are among the best, face and cranium excellent, femur and pelvis excellent. But ribs and a few other of the bones are less diagnostic.

But even with these parts, with a large enough sample you can use multivariate statistics and come up with some good data.

A quick check of the web shows that the KP 271 site has yielded a lot more specimens.

329 posted on 01/03/2006 9:13:01 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws

Then that goes beyond ID as I understand it. I am also told that non-Christians hold to ID as well.

I appreciate the discussion. In any case, whether ID is religious or not makes little difference to me. The debate is in and of itself religious, as evolution which is atheistic is taught as fact in 100% of public schools in America. All other theories are banned with a fervor that goes beyond science.

Consider the intensely personal tone of the ID threads on FR. I've seen some incredibly nasty posts by evolutionists on this forum. Perhaps others have engaged in that as well, I don't know.


330 posted on 01/03/2006 9:15:37 PM PST by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
Noah's Space Ark

That would explain it:


331 posted on 01/03/2006 9:18:16 PM PST by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

You posted: "Thomas you should read Rehnquits dissent in Wallace v Jaffree for a primer on estabishment clause jurisprudence and original intent. You're lost in a lost world."

Reply: A dissent is just what it is--a minority opinion that lost.

I am familiar with the majority opinons in McCollum, Torcasso, Engel, Schempp, Lemon, Lee, etc. Have you ever read even one of them?

I confess to being a blind man blindfolded in a dark room on a moonless night, but evolution makes sense to me, and ID does not.


332 posted on 01/03/2006 9:19:31 PM PST by thomaswest (just curious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen

OK Zack. I thank you for your civility.

I agree that many non-Christians support ID. I'd say a big percentage of Muslims would fall into that category.

I am afraid that you are being a little dishonest when you say "all other theories are banned....". Other than Evolution what other scientific theories are there for the origin a species? A religious concept cannot be a scientific concept, by definition. I don't want to see religion in the science classroom, but I have no problem with it in other subjects.

Perhaps you should read the comments of the CR/IDers more carefully. I've been called a "beast that will rot in Hell", an "atheistic, communistic fag", a "baby-killer" and "Nazi" so many times I've lost count.

Mostly I try to avoid name calling, but even I have slipped a few times.

Have a good evening.


333 posted on 01/03/2006 9:27:43 PM PST by furball4paws (The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

Some kind of a louse, shadowed and viewed with a SEM?


334 posted on 01/03/2006 9:29:25 PM PST by furball4paws (The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

You wrote: "then the government would only be prevented from prohibiting the free exercise of "state religion" or of a national church. But this construction is (one would hope) obviously absurd."

Reply:
Why is this absurd?

Churches have always tried to capture the power of government to promote their self-interests (tax-exemption, for one).

Is there a single word or phrase in the Constitution that says government has a positive obligation to promote religion? Obviously, there is not such a phrase. Religious beliefs and church affiliations were obviously meant to be left to the private sphere, the family and individual conscience, and not to public displays of religiosity and pretended piety.


335 posted on 01/03/2006 9:30:21 PM PST by thomaswest (just curious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
Dust mite.

Which brings up the question ...

Which one of Noah, Shem, Ham or Japheth had the crabs?

336 posted on 01/03/2006 9:43:18 PM PST by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: puroresu

"Intelligent design" is just another attempt to prove that a God exists. When stripped of all its verbiage about "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity", it comes down to "I don't understand it and you can't make me understand it." 10-yr olds have this reaction to fractions, too.

At the core of ID is a circular argument: to whit, " I believe in a God that makes life. I see life and this proves my god exists. I cannot imagine another god or naturalistic way to explain life. Therefore evolution is false and my belief is correct. My god-faith shows that evolution is false. Therefore god exists."





337 posted on 01/03/2006 9:51:43 PM PST by thomaswest (just curious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: All
Penn State wins by a field goal.

26-23 in triple OT

338 posted on 01/03/2006 9:59:48 PM PST by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: pby

You posted: "Your post wrongly assumes and concludes that it is impossible for a creationist, or non-evolutionist, to make scientific contributions. They have and will continue to do so.

How do the evolutionary faith-based assumed conclusions (HOX gene mutations as biological mechanisms for evolution from fish to land mammal, false feathered dinosaurs like ,Sinosauropteryx, and etc.)help us to actually observe the world around us in a manner that leads to scientific contributions?"

Reply:
I remain curious. Has any creationist or IDist ever discovered a new species? Has any creationist or IDist ever contributed to any taxanomic classification? Has any creationist or IDist ever made a contribution to medical science? I would like to know.

I mean, most of us do not go to witch doctors when we have an ailment. Most of us go to people who have a good basis in biology and science, and although they are mensch and fallible, they are better than astrologers, palm readers, and witch doctors.

I ask, what is the difference between ID and witch doctors? Both claim that a god is in control and He must be propitiated. In your view, where is there a place for cause and effect?

"Cause and effect" works very well for naturalistic, materialistic science, and for conservative values. You want to throw this overboard for relativistic morals? Just because you can't understand evolution?


339 posted on 01/03/2006 10:17:34 PM PST by thomaswest (just curious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws

16-16-16? Sounds kind of...cubic, if you ask me :)


340 posted on 01/03/2006 10:31:11 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws

You wrote: "I see. So the Intelligent part of Inteligent Design is merely a figment of my imagination."

Reply: I think you finally got it. You postulate that there is a god, he/she is intelligent and omnipotent. This god designs all things, intelligently, as we humans understand the word. Everything that happens, God did it. That explains everything. Supernatural intervention to make Noah's Flood? Supernatural guidance to make the Internet work? God directing every sperm and ovum on the planet? Gosh, there is no end to "intelligent design" being invoked to "explain" everything!


341 posted on 01/03/2006 10:39:06 PM PST by thomaswest (just curious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: pby; MineralMan

You posted: "In my opinion, even if you do not believe that Torasco [sic] v. Watkins provides the necessary legal weight, given your posted definitions and the Secular Humanism website that I cited, you would have to agree that Secular Humanism meets the definition of religion.

"You would have to also agree that the beliefs of the Secular Humanists sound an awful lot like many evo posters from Darwin Central...And their beliefs go way beyond science (into faith and religion)."

Reply: Roy Torcasso is alive and well and living in Maryland. If you are familiar with the case regarding Art VI in the Constitution, you might try to get the name right.

What is your definition of religion? Evolution has no alter boys, no prayers, no church establishments, no tax-exemption, no record of sex scandals, no pastors, preachers, or priests, no coming-of-age rituals like Bar Mitzvah or confirmation, no holidays, no banned books or statements about heresy and blasphemy, no record of burning witches or heretics, no public displays of prayer or piety, no holy book supposed to contain "All Truth', no recited creed, no mythological 'transubstantions', no edifices with crosses.

These are evidences of religion. The idea of evolution, based on observation of the natural world as we see it, does not have any of these attributes of religion.

Ipso facto, the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Gravity, the Germ Theory of Disease are not religions.


342 posted on 01/03/2006 11:10:41 PM PST by thomaswest (just curious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: dread78645
"fellatious?"
Yes. Of course, fellatious - what else could it be good for? I used an intentional play of words ["fellatious" vs. standard "fallacious"], with very similar phonetic pronunciation, but very distinctive meanings, purposefully indicating the antillectual [yet another wordplay] and mentally defecative [here's the third one for you!] levels of the argument in question and its underlying "thinking".
343 posted on 01/03/2006 11:28:23 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
That's a nice protected position to be in.

It's not a "protected position", it's a statement on the fundamental limitations (or rather, scope) of scientific inquiry.

Science can neither prove nor disprove God, nor His relationship to the events we see in the universe, so we're to assume God's irrelevant and the events we observe have nothing to do with God.

To which "God", out of the thousands of deities worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history, do you refer and why that one to the exclusion of all others. I can presume that it's a male deity, but even that doesn't narrow it down.

See, when you start demanding that science address deities, you run into sticky questions like "which one and why?"

And, no, we're not to assume that God is irrelevant. We're to acknowledge that science cannot give us any information regarding any deities and that any events that have a supernatural cause can never be fully explained by science. These are limits on what can be determined by science, not limits on our knowledge in general.

Surely you can see that people of faith find that anything but neutral.

I'm sorry that science doesn't accomidate your personal religious beliefs, but that's the nature of science.

Is science so fragile that it can't function if someone even so much as suggests that one possibility is that God designed things?

Science is unable to test such claims. That doesn't make the claims false, but there's no means for science to test the supernatural, and it's fundamentally unscientific and intellectually dishonest in general to demand that science accomidate the possibilities implied from a single specific religious faith to the exclusion of all others.
344 posted on 01/03/2006 11:29:00 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Very nice post. We didn't descend from apes. God created humans as humans.


345 posted on 01/04/2006 2:33:20 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: dread78645; GSlob
fellatious?

Evidently they suck.

346 posted on 01/04/2006 3:24:51 AM PST by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
All other theories are banned with a fervor that goes beyond science.

Wrong, boyo. At the moment there are no other theories. IDers seem to think their position must be considered science even though it lacks any positive evidence or testable hypotheses. If or when ID proponents get off their duffs and actually do some science then and only then will they have a dog in this hunt. Poking at evolution does not constitute POSITIVE evidence for ID.

I know it comforts you to think there is some sort of Grand Conspiracy to keep the masses ignorant of all those "alternate theories" but in this day and age, with the advent of the internet, it should be pretty easy to get the word out on a new theory -- IF THERE ACTUALLY WAS ONE.

347 posted on 01/04/2006 3:46:43 AM PST by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: willstayfree

The government takes our money to pay for public schools. I would rather they not take it at all if I send my children to a private school.


348 posted on 01/04/2006 4:31:52 AM PST by seemoAR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

I reckon you would accuse those who believe in theistic evolution as being "John Kerry" types. I have been clear in stating that science, when it excludes God entirely from its purview, is atheistic. I have been clear in stating this is a legitimate way to do science, whether it's embryology or geology. I have been clear in stating this type of science should be allowed a hearing in public schools. Lastly, I have been clear in stating that our Constitution does not guarantee the establishment of atheistic principles, whether it be in science classes or English classes, which essentially means that one may also undertake science with the assumption of an intelligent designer.

The controversy is really about the assumptions under which one receives and interprets the evidence. They range from atheistic to theistic and any combination of the two. They are all protected by our Constitution. They are none to be favored by the federal government.


349 posted on 01/04/2006 4:32:42 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: knowledgeforfreedom
If it's regular and consistent, you say it's due to God. If it's inconsistent, then God has intervened.

So? It's no different than when a human designs an implement and then steps in later to tweak it. Big deal.

350 posted on 01/04/2006 4:35:07 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400 ... 1,051-1,070 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson