Ruling in Dover ID Case

[FencerMcNally]

Yes, it is. The more science learns about the complexity of the body and its cell and DNA structure it is becoming increasing more evident that the human body did not get that way by some random process and thus had to have a designer. When you look at a house, dont you think their was an architect. When you look at the lightbulb dont you think there was a designer or inventor. Why is it so illogical to think that the human body had to be designed by a creator?

2funny2c, did you know that you share DNA with protozoans? Specifically, you yourself (along with everyone else) share DNA with the spirochete. The wonderful little creature that's responsible for syphilis.

You also share more than 98% of your DNA with Chimpanzees. You share a hell of a lot of your DNA with the most basic, single-celled organisms there are.

It's not illogical to think that the human body had to be designed by a creator. It is illogical to disguise Christian creationism as science and put it in the public classroom where children who are not Christians will be forced to listen to it, study it, and pass a test on it so that they can advance through school.

 

[2funny2c]

But, why is it so wrong to teach Evolution in science class? Christianity and evolution are not necessarily exclusive of one another. Schools could teach the science behind evolution, religion could assume that evolution is the method in which "the Creator" shaped the clay, if you MUST put a religious spin on it, it should be taught in churches.synigoges or other religious institutions. Public school is not a religious institution, nor (IMO) should it be.

I am not against teaching evolution in schools but teach ID or creationism as well. Put evolution in the classroom in as much as an unbiased presentation as possible. There is way too much doctored "evidence" being presented as fact in the textbooks to support evolution.

 

[Horizons16]

I am not against teaching evolution in schools but teach ID or creationism as well. Put evolution in the classroom in as much as an unbiased presentation as possible. There is way too much doctored "evidence" being presented as fact in the textbooks to support evolution.

A lot of the bible has been doctored... whose to say the redactors didnt just decide to throw in something that was way off base?

 

[Chuck S]

I will do some more research on the theories but I can think off the top of my head one theory that has recently come under scrunity: Global warming is a theory that is under fire now. Then you have what many consider "junk" science that is constantly being proven false. But I will look and see about some more establised theories and get back to you on that.

Actually, Global Warming is more than theory, the average temperature is indeed increasing. What is disputable is the cause, green house gases certainly play a role, and pollution contributes to those green house gases. But a normal cyclitic effect may also be a larger contributor.

 

[JennyMominRI]

What I
At an rate personally Creationism, as well as Darwinism should be taught in schools. How can you have a well rounded eduation when you have teachers/professors saying that man has come from an ape. It should be presented as 2 seperat theories.

Thats just my 2 cents.

The theory of evolution does not say that man descended from apes,it states that man AND apes have a common ancestor

 

[Chuck S]

I am not against teaching evolution in schools but teach ID or creationism as well. Put evolution in the classroom in as much as an unbiased presentation as possible. There is way too much doctored "evidence" being presented as fact in the textbooks to support evolution.

Except that "creation/ID" is a belief with NO science behind it at all, you may as well teach magic. Evolution can, through the use of DNA, show that we are related, literally, to even the most simple life forms. If we were simply "created" from nothing, why would that DNA relationship exist? No species would share DNA characteristics with another species, each would be a seperate and unique creation.

 

[2funny2c]

Except that "creation/ID" is a belief with NO science behind it at all, you may as well teach magic. Evolution can, through the use of DNA, show that we are related, literally, to even the most simple life forms. If we were simply "created" from nothing, why would that DNA relationship exist? No species would share DNA characteristics with another species, each would be a seperate and unique creation.

You would imply that there no scientists that support ID. ID is supported by more than the religious fanatics that you would like to make it out to be. I am quite confident that they could produce cirriculum that would be of a scientific nature and not just say , "God created Man, end of story" I am sure that cirriculum exist today on the subject of ID. It would be quite more than just "teaching magic".

What is wrong with asking for accuracy in evolution classroom materials? You expect students to take a leap of faith and believe in evolution based on biased and flawed evidence.

Teach both in the schools. As others have said the truth may be a combination of the theories. I, for one, would not dare try to place limits on what God uses to complete his plans.

 

[POB14]

Okay, since I started this thread, I'll chime in once, and only once.

First, most of the things I could say were said better by the judge in his opinion, linked in the OP. I encourage everyone to read the whole 139-page monster.

One of the points he makes strongly is: science is the search for natural explanations. Religion is the search for supernatural explanations. We teach science in the public school. We don't teach religion.

ID is religion, not science. The judge explains why: it's a thinly disguised veil for creationism, there is absolutely no peer-reviewed research supporting it, and it makes no falsifiable predictions.

Some day I'll write a long article on why this is so important to me. Today, and you may thank any god you please now, is not that day.

Just know this: Evolution does not deny you a soul. As my parents used to tell me, nature made your body, God made your soul. Isn't Jesus' love powerful enough to save you, even if you are a cousin of the apes? Isn't it wonderful that, of all the animals, plants, protists and viruses, God chose to become a HUMAN? Christianity, or any other faith, is not incompatible with evolution.

To paraphrase Bryan, of all people: the Bible speaks not of the age of rocks, but of the Rock of Ages.

Merry Christmas, everyone. Or Happy Holidays, if you prefer.

 

[BelleMcNally]

You would imply that there no scientists that support ID. ID is supported by more than the religious fanatics that you would like to make it out to be. I am quite confident that they could produce cirriculum that would be of a scientific nature and not just say , "God created Man, end of story" I am sure that cirriculum exist today on the subject of ID. It would be quite more than just "teaching magic". .

Well, any number of scientists can have any number of religious or non-religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean that they hold water when tested scientifically.

I am quoting myself, directly, from a previous thread, because the facts haven't changed since then, and people are still obviously unclear of what makes science science and what the term scientific theory actually means.

"My stance (and I really don't want to belittle anyone's Creed in any way--you all seem like smart, kind people whose beliefs inform their lives in beautiful ways) is that it has been federally ruled that church and state should remain seperate. Public schools are an institution of the "state"; teaching Intelligent Design alongside Evolution in a Science Classroom, equates a religious belief with a scientific theory.

There are many Scientific Hypotheses (that have nothing to do with evolution or creation at all) that are not part of standard school ciricula yet simply because they have not undergone the rigors necessary to gain approval by the scientific community at large. Once research supporting the claims of intelligent design has been subjected to the normal process of scientific experimentation and debate and findings in support of the Intelligent Design Theory have been published in a recognized, professional, peer-reviewed scientific journal, it might belong in public school classrooms."

 

[AnaheimGirl]

Here's a question for those that believe in ID as a scientific theory, bear with me, first I must verify a couple of points:

The whole "science" behind ID is that life is too complex to be be explained by evolution, right? It's so complex that nothing else can explain it, other than an intelligent designer who purposefully created us in this way, right?

So, it seems this intelligent designer must be more intelligent and complex than us, in order to have the ability to create us, right?

So, how did he come into being, then? Was there an even more intelligent designer that designed Him? If we are so complex that we must have been designed, it would seem that our designer also had to be designed, and his, and his, and his, and so on, and so on... (eek, getting visions of a bad 70's shampoo commercial!)

How does ID explain the existence of the intelligent designer?

 

[FencerMcNally]

Not trying to split hairs but when you say that evolution has been tested over the centuries it paints an inaccurate picture.

I will do some more research on the theories but I can think off the top of my head one theory that has recently come under scrunity: Global warming is a theory that is under fire now. Then you have what many consider "junk" science that is constantly being proven false. But I will look and see about some more establised theories and get back to you on that.

Global Warming is an observed phenomenon, not a theory. The explanations for Global Warming are theories, and they are subjected to the exact same scientific scrutiny as Evolution has been for the past 146 years.

Over the next 146 years maybe scientists will get a pretty good fix on what causes Global Warming. And then someone who's interested in their own agenda will say, "But hey! It's just a theory! Look, it says it right there! The Theory of Global Warming! If it's just a theory then it doesn't mean anything!" They will then proceed to attempt to discredit this Theory of Global Warming because they just don't like it.

Evolution is firmly established in sound Science, and you know what? Yes, some of the things Darwin said turned out not to be right. You know what happened? People corrected the parts that were wrong and kept the parts that continued to be right. And now, you have what we call Evolution.

Children in science classes ARE taught that Evolution is a theory. They're taught exactly what the word theory means and they see it every time they open up their text books to read about the Theory of Evolution. They aren't taught about Intelligent Design because it is NOT a scientific theory. It's an idea.

 

[Laura]

Global Warming is an observed phenomenon, not a theory. The explanations for Global Warming are theories, and they are subjected to the exact same scientific scrutiny as Evolution has been for the past 146 years.

Over the next 146 years maybe scientists will get a pretty good fix on what causes Global Warming. And then someone who's interested in their own agenda will say, "But hey! It's just a theory! Look, it says it right there! The Theory of Global Warming! If it's just a theory then it doesn't mean anything!" They will then proceed to attempt to discredit this Theory of Global Warming because they just don't like it.

Evolution is firmly established in sound Science, and you know what? Yes, some of the things Darwin said turned out not to be right. You know what happened? People corrected the parts that were wrong and kept the parts that continued to be right. And now, you have what we call Evolution.

Children in science classes ARE taught that Evolution is a theory. They're taught exactly what the word theory means and they see it every time they open up their text books to read about the Theory of Evolution. They aren't taught about Intelligent Design because it is NOT a scientific theory. It's an idea.

Well said. It seems people have forgotten basic science when they say "evolution is just a theory". Evolution is a fact, too. The theory of evolution is not the theory of whether evolution exists but a theory for explaining how evolution works. Evolution is an observed process that isn't fully understood by science. We're still learning.

 

[rigs32]

I have two points to make here.

First, even if you believe in ID, you have to look at the facts of this case. The school board lied. A lot. They claimed that ID was to "balance" the teaching of evolution, but that's not true. Many board members said - and it's documented in transcripts - that it was a religiously based push to get ID in the public school classroom. No matter how you look at it, that is wrong.

Secondly, if we are so concerned about balancing science class, why is no one up in arms about the content of history textbooks? The content of most K-12 history books is a whitewashed, watered down retelling of the stories that make the US look good. Why aren't people advocating bringing the primary sources to kids? Let them read and discuss the actual constitution, not just memorize facts about it. Let them learn about the many faults of past presidents to learn from them and see how to overcome adversary. I could go on and on.

And for the record, as a non-Christian, Christianity is so pervasive in our society to begin with, there is no reason why it needs to come into science class, too. Just like many personal topics that schools don't cover, if you believe in ID, you can make arrangements to teach it to compliment evolution at home.

 

[LucyStorm]

The thing about all of it is, that for most every theory presented as proven by scientific research as fact, it is easy to find a study that proves just the opposite.

 

[bicker]

There doesnt have to be a specific version that needs to be taught. All believe in a higher being(s) that create the world.

So you'd be okay with Scientology being taught in Science class, instead of ID?

 

[NJBlackBerry]

How about the Theory of Gravity? You do believe in Gravity, don't you?

The "theory" of gravity should be replaced by Intelligent Falling. IF should be taught in all schools.

This is a GREAT thread! Bravo to the judge who stodd up against junk science.

 

[bicker]

ID is not "junk science." It's an attack on science. Big difference.

 

[NJBlackBerry]

ID is not "junk science." It's an attack on science. Big difference.

Fair enough - it is an attack on proven science. Tragic.

 

[bicker]

It seems people have forgotten basic science when they say "evolution is just a theory". Evolution is a fact, too. The theory of evolution is not the theory of whether evolution exists but a theory for explaining how evolution works. Evolution is an observed process that isn't fully understood by science. We're still learning.

This bears repeating. As a matter of fact, I was going to post the same exact thing, but then I saw you had already said it!

"Populations of one species of organism do, over time change into new, or several new, species."

That's a fact. There is no legitimate objections to that fact. As you said, I think sometimes people tend to forget that. The fact that humans and apes have common ancestors is not up for debate; it is proven, to the satisfaction of all rational and knowledgeable folks.

 

[Galahad]

As many have pointed out, Intelligent Design is not science. But it is not religion either, but a belief. Charles Darwin, for example, believed in intelligent design.