Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 6
Posted: 12/20/2005 9:26:37 AM EDT


By MARTHA RAFFAELE, Associated Press Writer 36 minutes ago

HARRISBURG, Pa. - "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.
ADVERTISEMENT
Adblock
[-78161]

Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said. Several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives, he said.

The ruling will not likely be appealed by the slate of new board members, who in the November election ousted the group that installed intelligent design, the new board president said Tuesday.

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy," Jones wrote, calling the board's decision "breathtaking inanity."

"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," he wrote.

The board's attorneys had said members were seeking to improve science education by exposing students to alternatives to Charles Darwin's theory that evolution develops through natural selection. Intelligent-design proponents argue that the theory cannot fully explain the existence of complex life forms.

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

The judge agreed.


"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom," he wrote in his 139-page opinion.

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

Jones wrote that he wasn't saying the intelligent design concept shouldn't be studied and discussed, saying its advocates "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors."

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


The controversy divided the borough of Dover and surrounding Dover Township, a rural area of nearly 20,000 residents about 20 miles south of Harrisburg. It galvanized voters to oust eight incumbent school board members who supported the policy in the Nov. 8 school board election. The ninth board member was not up for re-election.

Said the judge: "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 members were replaced by a slate of eight opponents who pledged to remove intelligent design from the science curriculum.

They also will likely drop the old plan now that the judge has ruled, new board president Bernadette Reinking said. "As far as I can tell you, there is no intent to appeal," she said.

Reinking said the new board will likely move the subject of intelligent design into some undetermined elective social studies class. She said the board will need to talk to its attorney before determining specific actions.

Eric Rothschild, lead attorney for the families who challenged the policy, called the ruling "a real vindication for the parents who had the courage to stand up and say there was something wrong in their school district."

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which represented the school board, did not return a telephone message seeking comment.

It was the latest chapter in a 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 a technicality, 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.

It is among at least a handful of cases 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 evolution disclaimer stickers placed in a biology textbooks. A federal judge in January had 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.

-------------------------------------------------
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 9:28:40 AM EDT
Now you've gone and done it.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 9:33:03 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 9:33:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/20/2005 9:35:49 AM EDT by doorgunner84]
This is really a shame... I mean how in the hell are we supposed to get word out about the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster?
~Dg84

Link Posted: 12/20/2005 9:37:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By doorgunner84:
This is really a shame... I mean how in the hell are we supposed to get word out about the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster?
~Dg84

www.venganza.org/images/noodledoodlewall.jpg



I saw TGFSM on a bumper sticker on the way to work.
Said "FSM" underneath the outline image.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 9:38:31 AM EDT
The ruling is 139 pages long. I suggest that people make an effort to read it before making snap judgements about the decision.

Read it here -> Tammy Kitzmiller et al vs. Dover Area Scool District et al
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 9:42:23 AM EDT
Send in the moderators!

Link Posted: 12/20/2005 9:43:56 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 9:45:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 9:57:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/20/2005 9:58:34 AM EDT by ShadowOne]
That's funny. Those school board members who tried to push creationism lost their jobs over this, now the courts outlaw it from the classroom! The creationists in the end got nothing, double whammy, that's great. Hope this sets a precedent for the entire nation.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:07:04 AM EDT
Can I dare ask....

What if the Bible expained evolution in it.......

Would teaching evolution then need to be banned from school science classes?
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:08:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AmericanPatriot1776:
Can I dare ask....

What if the Bible expained evolution in it.......

Would teaching evolution then need to be banned from school science classes?

The Bible isn't about science. It's about faith. If you have faith, you don't need an explanation.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:12:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/20/2005 10:13:30 AM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By AmericanPatriot1776:
Can I dare ask....

What if the Bible expained evolution in it.......

Would teaching evolution then need to be banned from school science classes?



The Bible makes reference to historical places and historical events.
I learned about those same places and events in history class.

The Supreme Court has made it clear that religous subjects can be brought up in a cultural or historical theme without violating the establishment clause.

The method used to resolve this case was the method the SC has used in the past by combining the endorsement test with the lemon test. Basically, if the inclusion of the material isn't for religious purposes, its not a problem.

Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:12:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/20/2005 10:24:15 AM EDT by kill-9]
That reminds me of this story:

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
August 17, 2005

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.


Rev. Gabriel Burdett (left) explains Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:15:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ShadowOne:
That's funny. Those school board members who tried to push creationism lost their jobs over this, now the courts outlaw it from the classroom! The creationists in the end got nothing, double whammy, that's great. Hope this sets a precedent for the entire nation.



Their jobs? Bet that wasn't the only job they had.

And its' not creationism they are pushing.

It's 'Intelligent Design'- totally different
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:19:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kill-9:
That reminds me of this story:




The gods of satire have smiled on you.

But beware the humorless, for they will inherit this thread.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:20:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/20/2005 10:21:19 AM EDT by NoVaGator]

Originally Posted By kill-9:
That reminds me of this story:

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
August 17, 2005







the best part is the graphic in the b/g of the pic
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:20:52 AM EDT
I'll bet George Washington's kids were taught God had nothing to do with creation....

Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:21:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
And its' not creationism they are pushing.

It's 'Intelligent Design'- totally different



Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:22:32 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:23:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/20/2005 10:24:45 AM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By CRC:

Originally Posted By ShadowOne:
That's funny. Those school board members who tried to push creationism lost their jobs over this, now the courts outlaw it from the classroom! The creationists in the end got nothing, double whammy, that's great. Hope this sets a precedent for the entire nation.



Their jobs? Bet that wasn't the only job they had.

And its' not creationism they are pushing.

It's 'Intelligent Design'- totally different



Not according to the major ID proponents.

pages 30 to 33 of the decision show many examples that demonstrate ID is modern repackaging of creationism.


While being deposed, the defense expert Fuller admitted that ID is a form on creationism, for instance.

Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:24:39 AM EDT
that's a shame. I was hoping the chrristian fundies were going to fuck with the secular left so bad that they would get distracted from gun-grabbing for a while.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:25:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:

Originally Posted By ShadowOne:
That's funny. Those school board members who tried to push creationism lost their jobs over this, now the courts outlaw it from the classroom! The creationists in the end got nothing, double whammy, that's great. Hope this sets a precedent for the entire nation.



Their jobs? Bet that wasn't the only job they had.

And its' not creationism they are pushing.

It's 'Intelligent Design'- totally different



+1

Why can't people understand that ID and creationism are very different? Sometimes makes me think they want to lump IDists together with the religious peoples so it's easy to dismiss them without ever having to debate the science behind it.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:26:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
...
And its' not creationism they are pushing.

It's 'Intelligent Design'- totally different



The judge found that in this particular case the defendants WERE pushing Creationism.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:27:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/20/2005 10:31:26 AM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By fisherman081:

Originally Posted By CRC:

Originally Posted By ShadowOne:
That's funny. Those school board members who tried to push creationism lost their jobs over this, now the courts outlaw it from the classroom! The creationists in the end got nothing, double whammy, that's great. Hope this sets a precedent for the entire nation.



Their jobs? Bet that wasn't the only job they had.

And its' not creationism they are pushing.

It's 'Intelligent Design'- totally different



+1

Why can't people understand that ID and creationism are very different? Sometimes makes me think they want to lump IDists together with the religious peoples so it's easy to dismiss them without ever having to debate the science behind it.



ID is not science, it is philosophy/religion.

For it to be science, they need to actually have a theory. Currently, it is nothing more than pointing out gaps in evolutionary theory.



The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a
mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.

p43 of the Kitzmiller decision

Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:27:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:

Originally Posted By ShadowOne:
That's funny. Those school board members who tried to push creationism lost their jobs over this, now the courts outlaw it from the classroom! The creationists in the end got nothing, double whammy, that's great. Hope this sets a precedent for the entire nation.



Their jobs? Bet that wasn't the only job they had.

And its' not creationism they are pushing.

It's 'Intelligent Design'- totally different



Shh. You are arguing with people who believe in spontainous generation. They are simpletons who will buy anything and need to have their delicate balance remain undisturbed!
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:28:15 AM EDT
I think we demand science should be taught at bible study and sunday school at churches on sundays.

Better yet, we should designate 10 minutes during each class period where students are required to read the bible. Ohhhh I've got an even better idea.... We should take a page from our muslim brothers and make our schools more like Madrases that way we could pump out tiny little Christian extremists.

You want your kids to learn about science? Send them to science class. You want your kids to learn about god? Take them to Sunday school. Or even better, take them to both and allow them to make up their own minds.

But hey, that's just what I think and you can take that for what it's worth.
~Dg84

PS. Good call Judge Jones!
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:29:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
I'll bet George Washington's kids were taught God had nothing to do with creation....




I'd bet they weren't (but that was your point.) On the flip side I'd bet they weren't taught about atomic theory, hydrothermal vents, radio waves, the DNA molecule, photons, Mendel's laws of genetics, probably not cells even.

I'm glad the Founding fathers created a document that could keep up with science. Weren't they smart?
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:32:10 AM EDT
You believe what you want just don't ram evolution and the 'Big Bang' down my throat like it's fact.



Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:33:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/20/2005 10:42:53 AM EDT by Planerench]

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By fisherman081:

Originally Posted By CRC:

Originally Posted By ShadowOne:
That's funny. Those school board members who tried to push creationism lost their jobs over this, now the courts outlaw it from the classroom! The creationists in the end got nothing, double whammy, that's great. Hope this sets a precedent for the entire nation.



Their jobs? Bet that wasn't the only job they had.

And its' not creationism they are pushing.

It's 'Intelligent Design'- totally different



+1

Why can't people understand that ID and creationism are very different? Sometimes makes me think they want to lump IDists together with the religious peoples so it's easy to dismiss them without ever having to debate the science behind it.



ID is not science, it is philosophy/religion.

For it to be science, they need to actually have a theory. Currently, it is nothing more than pointing out gaps in evolutionary theory.




Dino is right. That really wasn't friendly. Merry Christmas Dino!
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:33:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
You believe what you want just don't ram evolution and the 'Big Bang' down my throat like it's fact.



That's why evolution is always referred to as a theory.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:34:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By doorgunner84:
I think we demand science should be taught at bible study and sunday school at churches on sundays.

Better yet, we should designate 10 minutes during each class period where students are required to read the bible. Ohhhh I've got an even better idea.... We should take a page from our muslim brothers and make our schools more like Madrases that way we could pump out tiny little Christian extremists.

You want your kids to learn about science? Send them to science class. You want your kids to learn about god? Take them to Sunday school. Or even better, take them to both and allow them to make up their own minds.

But hey, that's just what I think and you can take that for what it's worth.
~Dg84

PS. Good call Judge Jones!



We are already ahead of you there! In more ways than one.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:37:00 AM EDT
Just a question....
Does the flu virus evolve every year or does God create a new one every year?
~Dg84

Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:37:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By fisherman081:

Originally Posted By CRC:

Originally Posted By ShadowOne:
That's funny. Those school board members who tried to push creationism lost their jobs over this, now the courts outlaw it from the classroom! The creationists in the end got nothing, double whammy, that's great. Hope this sets a precedent for the entire nation.



Their jobs? Bet that wasn't the only job they had.

And its' not creationism they are pushing.

It's 'Intelligent Design'- totally different



+1

Why can't people understand that ID and creationism are very different? Sometimes makes me think they want to lump IDists together with the religious peoples so it's easy to dismiss them without ever having to debate the science behind it.



ID is not science, it is philosophy/religion.

For it to be science, they need to actually have a theory. Currently, it is nothing more than pointing out gaps in evolutionary theory.




Actually you are wrong about that. ID is in fact a theory. Many people make the common assumption that ID is no more then a negative argument against evolution, but they are mistaken.
In the word's of Bruce Gordon -

"What has come to be called 'design theory' is at best a means for mathematically describing, empirically detecting, and then quantifying teleology (goal-directedness) in nature, without prejudging where or whetherit will be found."

ID is all about CSI (complex specified information) and the interptretation of what it tells us. This is not a negative argument based on attacking evolution and should not be treated as such.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:37:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Planerench:

Originally Posted By CRC:

Originally Posted By ShadowOne:
That's funny. Those school board members who tried to push creationism lost their jobs over this, now the courts outlaw it from the classroom! The creationists in the end got nothing, double whammy, that's great. Hope this sets a precedent for the entire nation.



Their jobs? Bet that wasn't the only job they had.

And its' not creationism they are pushing.

It's 'Intelligent Design'- totally different



Shh. You are arguing with people who believe in spontanous generation. They are simpletons who will buy anything and need to have their delicate balance remain undisturbed!



Spontaneous generation (mice from grain, maggots from meat etc..) was disproved by Pasteur (a scientist and a Christian) a long time ago.

Modern theories of abiogenesis are far different.

Right now, we don't know how the first life was created. Since I'm not an uneducated caveman I don't feel the need to make up mythology when I don't understand something.

For a discussion of modern abiogenesis contrasted with spontaneous generation, go here
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:37:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kill-9:

Originally Posted By CRC:
You believe what you want just don't ram evolution and the 'Big Bang' down my throat like it's fact.



That's why evolution is always referred to as a theory.



Actually, the Religious evolutionists have sold us on that when it is not even a theory. Microevolution is a theory. The Big Bang, Cosmic evolution, Spontaineous Generation under the umbrella of Evolution is a hypothesis. Use the correct words or they will be used against you.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:40:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Planerench:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By fisherman081:

Originally Posted By CRC:

Originally Posted By ShadowOne:
That's funny. Those school board members who tried to push creationism lost their jobs over this, now the courts outlaw it from the classroom! The creationists in the end got nothing, double whammy, that's great. Hope this sets a precedent for the entire nation.



Their jobs? Bet that wasn't the only job they had.

And its' not creationism they are pushing.

It's 'Intelligent Design'- totally different



+1

Why can't people understand that ID and creationism are very different? Sometimes makes me think they want to lump IDists together with the religious peoples so it's easy to dismiss them without ever having to debate the science behind it.



ID is not science, it is philosophy/religion.

For it to be science, they need to actually have a theory. Currently, it is nothing more than pointing out gaps in evolutionary theory.




You really need to get some education. Your ignorant rantings are getting rather tiresome. You have no idea what ID is and you demonstrated that fact in every discussion of the topic. If, on the outside chance that you have ever actually attended a school, perhaps you could get your money back and have a nice Christmas with the money!



Actually I know exactly what ID is, creationism repackaged to get past the late 80's court decision that creationism could not be taught in the classroom.

You resort to ad hominem attacks because you don't have an actual argument.

Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:44:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Planerench:

Originally Posted By kill-9:

Originally Posted By CRC:
You believe what you want just don't ram evolution and the 'Big Bang' down my throat like it's fact.



That's why evolution is always referred to as a theory.



Actually, the Religious evolutionists have sold us on that when it is not even a theory. Microevolution is a theory. The Big Bang, Cosmic evolution, Spontaineous Generation under the umbrella of Evolution is a hypothesis. Use the correct words or they will be used against you.



Spontaneous generation is a disproved theory having nothing to do with evolution.
Abiogenesis is a modern concept that has a way to go before I would put any stock in it. I personally consider it a hypothesis but many scientists with a lot more credentials than I have disagree with me.

Abiogenesis and evolution are 2 different theories and do not rely on one another.

Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:47:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fisherman081:
Actually you are wrong about that. ID is in fact a theory. Many people make the common assumption that ID is no more then a negative argument against evolution, but they are mistaken.
In the word's of Bruce Gordon -

"What has come to be called 'design theory' is at best a means for mathematically describing, empirically detecting, and then quantifying teleology (goal-directedness) in nature, without prejudging where or whetherit will be found."

ID is all about CSI (complex specified information) and the interptretation of what it tells us. This is not a negative argument based on attacking evolution and should not be treated as such.



[sarcasm on]
Too bad the ID experts make that same mistake, over and over.

If they had your awareness, maybe the creationists IDers wouldn't have a 132 page decision which states over and over that ID is not science, but simply a repackaging of creationism and inherently a religious view.

[sarcasm off]
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 10:53:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By doorgunner84:
Just a question....
Does the flu virus evolve every year or does God create a new one every year?
~Dg84




, if it wasn’t so depressing.

How people can look at the realities of life and see a "creator" or "design" shocks me to no end. Intellectual laziness is pandemic.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 11:01:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By fisherman081:
Actually you are wrong about that. ID is in fact a theory. Many people make the common assumption that ID is no more then a negative argument against evolution, but they are mistaken.
In the word's of Bruce Gordon -

"What has come to be called 'design theory' is at best a means for mathematically describing, empirically detecting, and then quantifying teleology (goal-directedness) in nature, without prejudging where or whetherit will be found."

ID is all about CSI (complex specified information) and the interptretation of what it tells us. This is not a negative argument based on attacking evolution and should not be treated as such.



[sarcasm on]
Too bad the ID experts make that same mistake, over and over.

If they had your awareness, maybe the creationists IDers wouldn't have a 132 page decision which states over and over that ID is not science, but simply a repackaging of creationism and inherently a religious view.

[sarcasm off]



I read the part of the decision that applied to whether or not ID is creationism renamed and found the arguements to be weak and generally based off of assumptions about ID that are not true to what ID actually claims. Also they spent alot of time talking about a book written by creationists who later changed the content to replace creationism with ID. While this certainly is an instance of people re-packaging creationism it seems silly to base such a large decision off this one instance especially since it was written by self proclaimed creationists. It is bad judgement to take this one case which might have been "cerry picked" to try and prove that all IDists are closet creationists.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 11:04:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/20/2005 11:10:51 AM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By Planerench:
Merry Christmas Dino!



Merry Christmas to you as well!

Link Posted: 12/20/2005 11:10:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/20/2005 11:11:11 AM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By fisherman081:
I read the part of the decision that applied to whether or not ID is creationism renamed and found the arguements to be weak and generally based off of assumptions about ID that are not true to what ID actually claims. Also they spent alot of time talking about a book written by creationists who later changed the content to replace creationism with ID. While this certainly is an instance of people re-packaging creationism it seems silly to base such a large decision off this one instance especially since it was written by self proclaimed creationists. It is bad judgement to take this one case which might have been "cerry picked" to try and prove that all IDists are closet creationists.



ID as you propose it has scientific merit imo. The problem is the idea has been coopted by creationists and they are the ones getting the issue pushed in the courts.

I'm curious what your thoughts are on Theistic evolution. With that it would appear there is no need for ID.



Link Posted: 12/20/2005 11:28:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:


ID as you propose it has scientific merit imo. The problem is the idea has been coopted by creationists and they are the ones getting the issue pushed in the courts.

I'm curious what your thoughts are on Theistic evolution. With that it would appear there is no need for ID.




When it comes to Theistic evolution I would consider it to be within the possible explainations offered by ID, but it doesn't include many other ideas that are developed within ID so it doesn't eliminate the need for ID. Personally I don't subscribe to the ideas of Theistic evolution just because I think the evidence in nature doesn't point to a slow development of all life from a common ancestor, but i'm not going to disown someone who does belive that to be the case. I think one of the biggest problems in this whole issue is that no one will accept the possibility that they are wrong, and that results in a lot of fighting which accomplishes nothing.

Thank you for the peaceable conversation.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 11:36:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:

Originally Posted By CRC:
And its' not creationism they are pushing.

It's 'Intelligent Design'- totally different





+
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 11:40:11 AM EDT
if intelligent design isn't creationism, wtf is it?

i've never heard of this new thing. enlighten me.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 11:45:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By iroc409:
if intelligent design isn't creationism, wtf is it?

i've never heard of this new thing. enlighten me.



The actual difference is so small and both center on the idea, or elude to, a "god" of some sort. Poof!!!....The universe is created!

It's splitting hairs, and the difference is meaningless.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 11:50:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By iroc409:
if intelligent design isn't creationism, wtf is it?

i've never heard of this new thing. enlighten me.



Not really a theory, rather a coordinated critique of evolution that says essentially that the probability that things got to be the way they are through mutation and natural selection is so small that it couldn't possibly have happened that way, that some intelligent "designer" must have been involved.

Beyond that, you need only look at who is pushing it to understand what it's all about.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 11:58:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By iroc409:
if intelligent design isn't creationism, wtf is it?

i've never heard of this new thing. enlighten me.



As I said earlier in this thread ID is basically teleology, a means of determining goal-directedness in nature. The main difference between ID and creationism is what they try to prove. Creationism is about proving that a supernatural power ( the God of Christianity) created everything about 6000 years ago. ID simply says that nature displays complex specified information and therefore can't have come to be through random processes, thus it is designed. ID is totally silent about who the designer may be, that is a question better left to philosophers and theologians.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 12:01:11 PM EDT
what is the evidence for ID which is not simply just evidence against evolution? evidence against evolution is not automatically evidence in favor of ID, there could be other theories out there.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 12:04:40 PM EDT
Best read yet that I have come across on the subject.

www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan150.html
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 6
Top Top