Revote today [Dover, PA school board]

York Daily Record [Penna] ^ | 03 January 2006 | TOM JOYCE

[doc30]

Thanks for the info - very interesting article.

[ASA Vet]

The FR member you're calling "Troll" is 3 years your senior around here.
Perchance you don't know what is a "troll?"

[Alamo-Girl]

You are making an unwarranted assumption that that is how I approach questions of truth with regard to the natural world. And you would be mistaken, my friend.

Indeed, that is not the way you approach such questions!

[highball]

"The effects of gravity can be observed, and have been, repeatedly."

Very well then. So can "the effects of God."

No they can't.

Provide proof that doesn't require a belief in God.

[PatrickHenry]

Another service of Darwin Central.

[Junior]

Opus takes on intelligent design.

[RadioAstronomer]

Also look at my links from post 286

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1551240/posts?page=286#286

[Fester Chugabrew]

Provide proof that doesn't require a belief in God.

Have you forgotten? You can't prove a negative.

[RadioAstronomer]

Thanks! :-)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your views and your concerns!

Truly this particular case was more about the supporters of the intelligent design movement than the movement itself much less the intelligent design hypothesis.

Correlation is not causation.

The appearance of storks and babies at the same time does not mean there is a causal relationship.

Likewise, that most all atheists are evolutionist does not mean that there is a causal relationship between the two or that evolution should not be taught because it would establish atheism as the state religion.

And likewise, the intelligent design hypothesis must stand or fall on its own merits - regardless of who is supporting it or is against it and their motives or behavior.

My two cents...

[highball]

You admit, then, that you cannot provide objective evidence for "the effects of God"?

[puroresu]

So would a high school science teacher be doing his career a favor if he introduced his class to the scientific evidence for gender differences in spatial ability? Would any public school teacher in America dare such a thing?

All many of us have ever asked is that our opinion be considered. That opinion being that perhaps there is a God who's the author of all that we see. We haven't demanded the censorship of anything. Yet, feminists and other PC groups can demand outright censorship of scientific data, and the heroic evo-warriors who bask in the glow of media adoration for battling "fundies" tuck their tail between their legs and run for cover when a media-approved group wants to politicize science.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Objective evidence, yes. Conclusive proof, no.

[highball]

All many of us have ever asked is that our opinion be considered.

When your "opinion" can be expressed in scientific terms, it should absolutely be considered. Until then, you're asking for special treatment for your opinion and your opinion alone.

[highball]

Objective evidence, yes. Conclusive proof, no.

So why all the smokescreen? Where's the objective evidence that doesn't require proof in God?

[highball]

Apologies. That should be "Where's the objective evidence that doesn't require belief in God?"

Need more coffee.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Can you provide objective evidence that matter is not organized and does not behave according to predictable laws?

[highball]

There you go again....

You make specific claims, then when pressed for support, you ask someone else to prove that your claims are not true.

[Fester Chugabrew]

As far as I know, objective evidence is free to be interpreted with or without the "requirement" of God.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I wasn't asking for proof. I was asking for objective evidence. The two are not synonymous.