Dover Judge Rules Against Intelligent Design

[linwood]

The Discovery Institute, which did not respond Monday to a request for comment, has called Forrest a liar.

All you really need to do is read the Disciovery Institues "Wedge Document" to see who is lying.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html
It isn`t Forrest.

Forrest destroyed the defenses assertion that "Of Pandas and People" was a non-religious/creationist source.
She had copies of numerous editorial transcripts of the book that showed all the publishers did is to remove the word "creation" and substitute the word "design".
One transcript actually had the word creadesigntion in it where apparently someone was lacking decent copy/paste skills .

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I haven`t seen it posted here so i`m leaving a link.
This is the entire judges opinion/decision regarding this trial.

If you click on my signature you will find that the NCSE has ongoing and excellent coverage of the ID dispute.

 

[BUDDY]

It makes me sick, that some of my fellow christians would resort to the ID lie, to try to push creation into the school system. They have committed themselves to lies and rhetoric in order to get every child to listen to the creation story. This is only going to do more to harm their cause, because they made a conscious decision to be dishonest with themselves and call something what it is not. Creation is creation, either you believe it or you don't, and any attempt to twist it into science is nothing more than a sniping attack on the intelligence of others. Like I said before, creationism is what it is, and they should just scratch this whole thing and start over by telling the truth.

 

[robtex]

It makes me sick, that some of my fellow christians would resort to the ID lie, to try to push creation into the school system.

I have a true story that may relate to this. My second college roommate was the youngest of 5 kids. His older brother on road trips would point to cows in the field and tell him they were horses. My old roommate not knowing any better soon accepted the "reality" that the cows were horses and went through kindergarden never being contested on his "reality". In first grade he got into an arguement with a fellow student over a picture of a cow which he kept calling a horse because his brother said it was a horse. A teacher chimed in telling him it was a cow but the arguement ensued until days later his brother confided in him that it was indeed a cow.

 

[michel]

I have a true story that may relate to this. My second college roommate was the youngest of 5 kids. His older brother on road trips would point to cows in the field and tell him they were horses. My old roommate not knowing any better soon accepted the "reality" that the cows were horses and went through kindergarden never being contested on his "reality". In first grade he got into an arguement with a fellow student over a picture of a cow which he kept calling a horse because his brother said it was a horse. A teacher chimed in telling him it was a cow but the arguement ensued until days later his brother confided in him that it was indeed a cow.

I have a personal example which is much more absurd than that........

As a young boy, for some reason, I believed that rivers flowed from the sea inland. (Imagine a large pod, in which you dump mounds of earth); the areas of land which were lower than sea level would be encroached by the pond water.

I remember feeling so stupid when I realized that my whole conception was about face!

 

[linwood]

If you click on my signature you will find that the NCSE has ongoing and excellent coverage of the ID dispute.

That is pretty comprehensive.
Thanks Jay.

It looks like (from the NCSE site) evolution is being challenged to a much greater degree than I had thought.
There are alot of articles on controversies in the public square that I was unaware of there.
I became interested in the Dover case because my local school board is comprised of a group of zealots that would make Dovers appear to be "enlightened".

I`m hoping the Dover case will put a stop to the local rumblings of a similar curriculum for my kids.
I`m already regarded as an "evil atheist" because of my vocal public opposition to the "abstinence only" curriculum that was attempted by my school board.

I`m hoping the board will see the light about ID before we have to trudge back out on the limb in an attempt to reel them back in.

 

[greatcalgarian]

That is pretty comprehensive.
Thanks Jay.

It looks like (from the NCSE site) evolution is being challenged to a much greater degree than I had thought.
There are alot of articles on controversies in the public square that I was unaware of there.
I became interested in the Dover case because my local school board is comprised of a group of zealots that would make Dovers appear to be "enlightened".

I`m hoping the Dover case will put a stop to the local rumblings of a similar curriculum for my kids.
I`m already regarded as an "evil atheist" because of my vocal public opposition to the "abstinence only" curriculum that was attempted by my school board.

I`m hoping the board will see the light about ID before we have to trudge back out on the limb in an attempt to reel them back in.

Atheist should aim to educate the religious when it comes to logic and science, and should refrain to get into their bad book and being branded as "evil atheist". May be your vocal public opposition has not been conducted in a diplomatic way.

 

[linwood]

Atheist should aim to educate the religious when it comes to logic and science, and should refrain to get into their bad book and being branded as "evil atheist". May be your vocal public opposition has not been conducted in a diplomatic way.

Maybe you should speak of what you know and avoid blind assumptions on topics you are wholly ignorant of.
It seems you are making the same mistake those who have done the branding are guilty of.

 

[Sunstone]

Here's an article from the Discovery Institute critical of Judge Jone's notion that evolution and God are compatible:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...d=3118&program=Misc&callingPage=discoMainPage

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=+1] Judging Darwin and God [/size][/font] [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
By: David Klinghoffer
The Seattle Times [/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1] December 23, 2005 [/size][/font] [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Original Article

Issuing theological statements isn't normally thought of as the job of a federal judge. Yet, this week when U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III released the first federal ruling on intelligent design, there was at the core of his written decision an unambiguously theological ruling: that evolution as formulated by Charles Darwin presents no conflict with the God of the Bible.

Quite apart from what one thinks of his legal decision, what should we make of his theology?

In brief, Jones ruled that disparaging Darwinian evolutionary theory in biology class violates the separation of church and state. The context is Kitzmiller v. Dover, a case dealing with the question of whether a school district may teach about an alternative theory, intelligent design (ID). The latter finds hallmarks of a designer's work in the evidence of nature.

Wrote Jones, "[M]any of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, [p]laintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution... in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."

As a matter of fact, Jones is wrong. Darwinism is indeed "antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general." There are three reasons for this, and you don't have to be a theologian to grasp the point.

First, consider the views on religion from leading Darwinists themselves. Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins, the most distinguished of modern Darwin advocates, writes that "faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate."

In his book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea," Daniel Dennett, of Tufts University, condemns conservative Christians for, among other things, "misinforming [their] children about the natural world" and compares such a religion to a wild animal: "Safety demands that religions be put in cages, too — when absolutely necessary."

Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, at the University of Texas, declares, "I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I'm all for that."

At the University of Minnesota, biologist P.Z. Myers, a bulldog for Darwin, writes about how he wishes he could use a time machine to go back and eliminate the biblical patriarch Abraham: "I wouldn't do anything as trivial as using it to take out Hitler."

And so on. These are just a few examples but the bottom line is evident: Not all Darwinists, including the most famous and admired, share Judge Jones' view that Darwin and God may coexist peacefully.

Second, and more fundamentally, Darwinism and religious faith begin from antithetical metaphysical assumptions. In "The Origin of Species," Darwin's working premise is that God has no role in the unfolding of the history of life. In view of this belief, which he never states or defends but simply assumes, Darwin goes on to detail his theory about natural selection operating on random variation. It is only in the absence of a supreme being working out his will in the evolution of life that we would even undertake Darwin's search in the first place. That was a search for a purely materialistic explanation of how complex organisms arise.

As Darwin himself clarified in his correspondence, "I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of natural selection if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent."

Religion, by contrast, does not assume that material reality is all there is.

This may be why, third and finally, thinkers who have tried to assert the compatibility of God and Darwin invariably end up changing the meaning of one or the other. Those, for example, who say that God may operate through the medium of Darwinian evolution have resorted to a logical fallacy. Again, the whole purpose of Darwin's theory is to discover a model by which life could have evolved without a need for God. Anyone asserting a full-bodied Darwinism has, by definition, rendered God superfluous and irrelevant.

The comforting thought articulated by Judge Jones, that we may have both our God and our Darwin, doesn't stand up to scrutiny, as some of the fiercer Darwinists themselves evidently recognize.

What this says about the public-policy question — What may be taught in schools? — should be clear enough. Whether children are taught materialism (Darwin), or an openness to what transcends nature (intelligent design), they are being taught not merely science but a philosophy about life and existence itself.

The idea that it is constitutional to expose young people to one such worldview, but not lawful to introduce them to another, is not really education. It is indoctrination.


David Klinghoffer of Mercer Island is a columnist for the Jewish Forward, a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, and the author most recently of "Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History" (Doubleday). [/font]

 

[linwood]

So many things wrong with that article.

First of all they`re blowing their own "Wedge Agenda" by even bringing up religion.
I guess they suppose their cover is blown so what the hell.
:biglaugh:

Secondly.. stating that the judges statement that religion and evolution are compatible is untrue is patently false.
The Catholic church teaches evolution itself and many Christians on these very boards have no problem believing evolution is Gods plan
Not to mention that they are silently making the arrogant statement that Christianity is the only religion that matters, there are many religions that don`t have a creation story to defend.

Thirdly ..quoting Dawkins and Wienburg are hardly fair assessments of evolutionary biologists as they are both raving atheists with an ulterior agenda (an agenda I agree with and will help to promote in anyway I can but an agenda nonetheless.)


Fourth ..Stating that Darwins method of basing his hypothesis without positting a supreme being contradicts religion is just IDiocy at it`s finest.
ALL SCIENCE BEGINS WITH AN IDEA ROOTED IN THE NATURAL OR IT CANNOT BE SCIENCE!!
The very technology they use to make this asssertion began with a hypothesis that had no suprmeme being involved to begin with.

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Again, the whole purpose of Darwin's theory is to discover a model by which life could have evolved without a need for God."

The above quote is an absolute lie, Darwin did not look for natural selection in an effort to discredit creationsim.
Darwin merely reported what he found in nature.
Nature discredits creationism, stop killing the messenger.
[/font]
"[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The idea that it is constitutional to expose young people to one such worldview, but not lawful to introduce them to another, is not really education. It is indoctrination."

You just post this stuff to get me riled up dontcha Sunstone?

The above quote is ..is...oh my god I think I just wet myself!!
[/font]

 

[Sunstone]

The idea that it is constitutional to expose young people to one such worldview, but not lawful to introduce them to another, is not really education. It is indoctrination.

Nice attempt there to put evolution and ID on the same footing, as two competing worldviews. But evolution is science, and the court case demonstrated that ID is not science.

You just post this stuff to get me riled up dontcha Sunstone?

Somebodies got to do it.

 

[YmirGF]

Somebodies got to do it.

And we can all thank our lucky stars you do, Sunstone.

 

[Fade]

If they were fact they would be called so. You could send 100 people into a room and 99 of them see a pink elephant and 1 saw a blue elephant. So who is right? the 99 or the 1?

Evolution is a fact and is infact 'called so'. Just like gravity is a fact or do you not stick to the ground?

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Anyone who hasn't done so yet, go and read the link at the bottom of Jayhawker Soule, or Deut.'s posts. Pretty good primer on evolution. And lots of examples of how we can indeed witness evolution within a human lifetime. Certainly within the time of recorded history.

I say this cause so often I hear things from creationists, such as, "well why can't we just put a monkey in a cage, and he grows up to be a human?"

Scientists in labs watching virus's evolve to become resistant to medicine is an example of evolution at work, in a way in which we can see, within a human lifetime. The link also talks about how sparrows from the North are bigger bodied and slightly different in color than those from the South, and that sparrows were only introduced into the U.S. a couple hundred years ago. Again, evolution at work, which is observable, verifiable, and test-able. My personal favorite example tho was of guppie populations who adjusted their coloration due to predator/receptive female guppie ratios.

Its a fascinating world out there as long as we don't close our eyes and minds to it.

B.

 

[Sunstone]

Here's the spin on the Dover trial from the Discovery Institute:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...id=3114&program=CSC&callingPage=discoMainPage

It's Over in Dover, But Not For Intelligent Design
By: John. G. West
USA Today
December 22, 2005


Original Article

Pyrrhic victory.

It's a phrase proponents of Darwin's theory might do well to ponder as they crow over the decision by a federal judge in Pennsylvania "permanently enjoining" the Dover school district from mentioning the theory of intelligent design in science classes.

Contrary to Judge John Jones' assertions, intelligent design is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory that holds there are certain features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. No legal decree can remove the digitally coded information from DNA, nor molecular machines from cells. The facts of biology cannot be overruled by a federal judge. Research on intelligent design will continue to go forward, and the scientific evidence will win out in the end.

Still, Darwinists clearly won this latest skirmish in the evolution wars. But at what cost?

Evolutionists used to style themselves the champions of free speech and academic freedom against unthinking dogmatism. But increasingly, they have become the new dogmatists, demanding judicially-imposed censorship of dissent.

Now, Darwinists are trying to silence debate through persecution. At Ohio State University, a graduate student's dissertation is in limbo because he was openly critical of Darwin's theory. At George Mason University, a biology professor lost her job after she mentioned intelligent design in class. At the Smithsonian, an evolutionary biologist was harassed and vilified for permitting an article favoring intelligent design to be published in a peer-reviewed biology journal.

Those who think they can stop the growing interest in intelligent design through court orders or intimidation are deluding themselves. Americans don't like being told there are some ideas they aren't permitted to investigate. Try to ban an idea, and you will generate even more interest in it.

Efforts to mandate intelligent design are misguided, but efforts to shut down discussion of a scientific idea through harassment and judicial decrees hurt democratic pluralism. The more Darwinists resort to censorship and persecution, the clearer it will become that they are championing dogmatism, not science.

John G. West is associate director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture, andassociate professor of political science at Seattle Pacific University.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Efforts to mandate intelligent design are misguided, but efforts to shut down discussion of a scientific idea through harassment and judicial decrees hurt democratic pluralism.

Appeals to academic freedom are disingenuous and absurd. Intelligent Design is not a scientific idea.

 

[Sunstone]

Appeals to academic freedom are disingenuous and absurd. Intelligent Design is not a scientific idea.

The proponents of ID can't win in the science lab and would like nothing better than to make this a political battle, where they can claim that "fairness" mandates equal time for their notions.

 

[JerryL]

The proponents of ID can't win in the science lab and would like nothing better than to make this a political battle, where they can claim that "fairness" mandates equal time for their notions.

It's consistant with the wedge idea... get your idea in front of them and then convert the discussion away from your original assertion.

WEDGE used ID to get in the science door, and then said to switch immediately to a morality discussion when challeneged on its merit. Here they've used the battle over ID to staert a free-speech play.

 

[Abram]

Evolution is a fact and is infact 'called so'. Just like gravity is a fact or do you not stick to the ground?

No, evolution is still a theroy. Just like ID is still a threoy...

 

[linwood]

Contrary to Judge John Jones' assertions, intelligent design is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory that holds there are certain features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause.

But the previous article you posted stated that it was religious.
Their own Wedge Document states that it is religious and as far as evidence goes....they`ve never found a sliver of it.

Research on intelligent design will continue to go forward, and the scientific evidence will win out in the end.

It already has...:biglaugh: