Attorney: Despite Dover Ruling, Intelligent Design Won't Go Away

Agape Press ^ | 1/6/06 | Jim Brown

[Just mythoughts]

Common descent = downward spiral.

[KeyWest]

Intelligent design is doing more to hurt the cause of Christ than to help it. It is ridiculed by non-believers and splits the faithful.

There is a solution, Home School.

[Elsie]

Despite Dover Ruling, Intelligent Design Won't Go Away

Duh!!!

[Elsie]

Surely they teach theology at the nearest seminary, or even in a Sunday school.

I can teach science in my Sunday School classroom and NO one will be upset about it!

HMmmmm....

[Elsie]

Science generally leaves religion pretty much alone, and until the Wedge Strategy, religion pretty much left science alone.

 

.
.
.

 

As an example, do you want a scientific analysis of the biblical version of the global flood? The evidence for a global flood is not good.

 

 

 

Uh... make up yer mind    ;^)

 

 

Sounds like SCIENCE is a wedge to split apart religion!!

[Elsie]

...dependant on evolution.

How?

Show me ONE thing that does.

[Elsie]

ID is not a part of nature...

What!?

Is this the ONLY thing in existance that isn't??

[Elsie]

...and such arguments are fellatious.

After careful reading of your reply, I can only conclude that it sucks!

[Elsie]

No one knows if you spelled it right when you are speaking face to face! ;^)

[Elsie]

The solution is to have parents pay for the education of their children.

We already DO this!

[cdgent]

Modern molecular and genetic biology is based on and dependant on evolution.

It isn't dependent on evolution in the least.

The predictive results of the application of the theory of evolution are what have allowed these sciences to advance so rapidly in the last few decades. That lack of that same predictive ability is what makes ID not a science.

As for common descent, it is a fact that a large portion of the genome of every species is common. Which, for people who believe that evolution has no evidence, is pretty hard to explain away.

I guess I don't understand what evolution and faith in God have to be exclusive. Since we have observed (indirectly, much the same as the SETI efforts mentioned above) the formation of stars and planets, we realize that perhaps the Creator built a set of rules that allow these things to (predictably) happen, and does not craft each occurance personally. What is wrong with discovering the same rules in biology?

Creation may be true, its just not science. No one will discover a new drug by staring with the premise that God thought up vandomycin-resistant staph sometime in the last 50 years just to kill us.

[Aquinasfan]

"The judge specifically ordered the school board never to denigrate or disparage the theory of evolution,"

There's no better way to get children to denigrate or disparage evolutionary theory, but better yet, to hopefully investigate ID theory for themselves.

[Aquinasfan]

Hard to believe there are people alive that are this ignorant. Millions of fossils

The millions of fossils that overwhelmingly demonstrate stasis in species?

[Condor51]

***So when was the last time we had a lizard turn into a bird?***

Dinosaurs. Specifically the Archaeopteryx

"In a nutshell, the majority of palaeontologists working on the ancestry of birds agree that dinosaurs, particularly small theropods, are the grandparents of present-day parrots, partridges and pigeons."

Granted there is debate whether dinosaurs were 'lizards' or warm blooded mammals but we are dealing with stuff that occurred +/-145 million years ago.

[Right Wing Professor]

The millions of fossils that overwhelmingly demonstrate stasis in species?

Well, exactly. The Archaeopteryxes that flit from tree to tree in modern German woods are the same half-reptiles, half-birds that flitted from tree fern to tree fern 120 million years ago.

[From many - one.]

Which is, of course, why we need to massively increase the amount of time we give to evolution in school.

I'd say that we are way overdue for a course in chemical biology to follow general chemistry.

I'd also require, no matter how watered down, 4 years of science in high school.

[Coyoteman]

Carbon 14 dating is seriously flawed as are Potassium-Radon and Uranium-Lead methods.

Sorry, this is incorrect. Carbon 14 dating is quite accurate. It is calibrated against written records going back several thousand years and against tree-rings going back about 11,600 years. Beyond that glacial varves and other methods take it past 20,000 years.

The only folks who make statements like yours seem to be arguing from a religious, not a scientific, viewpoint. And not all religious people feel the same way you do. Check out these websites, all written from a religious perspective.

ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists

The American Scientific Affiliation: Science in Christian Perspective Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.

Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)

How precise is radiocarbon dating?

Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?

Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?

With an open mind, that being key, one could make as well of an argument for the flood as one could for other theories.

Having an open mind is fine, but not so open that the wind blows through it. The evidence for a global flood at some 4,000-5,000 years ago is simply not there. Many of the problems are pointed out in this article:

Problems with a Global Flood, Second Edition, by Mark Isaak.

If you need more examples, let me know; I deal with Carbon-14 dating and archaeology in my work.

[From many - one.]

In a sense they are exactly that, if you add the word potential.

The DNA structure permits these changes so they are in a sense "built-in"

And, if that isn't miraculous, in the true sense, I don't know what is.

[VOA]

I'd say that we are way overdue for a course in chemical biology
to follow general chemistry.

That would be "biochemistry". And gets at least a few weeks coverage
usually in the second semester of general chemistry in high school.
(in any decent school)

I'd also require, no matter how watered down, 4 years of science
in high school.

I'd go more for 4 years of "technical" courses required.
This could be 4 years of the "hard sciences" or "shop" (with a wide
menu of subjects such as machine shop, automotives, glassblowing, etc.).

And a modest degree of choice in blending the two fields so
that even the hard-core geeks can get some "real-world" experience,
if they and their parents think it's a good idea.

[Right Wing Professor]

Agreed. I'm shocked how little molecular biolgy students know coming out of high school. I had a freshman seminar where students didn't know what DNA was.