Intelligent Design ruling

[Buckeyefan 1]

Just released this afternoon:

A federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled Tuesday that teaching "intelligent design" to public school science classes is unconstitutional, calling the concept that parts of the universe are the result of an intelligent designer "a religious view." -Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY

Full story:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...l-design_x.htm

[furrycute]

I'm glad that sanity still exists in the good old U.S. of A. For a while I really thought we have lost it with all those religious/political conservatives.

[Buckeyefan 1]

I agree.

Its not Science. Its belief. You can't teach beliefs.

SheepStar

Religious (and some private) schools do it daily.

Did you see this towards the bottom of the article?

"Earlier this month, a federal appeals court in Georgia heard arguments over whether evolution disclaimer stickers placed in a school system's biology textbooks were unconstitutional. A federal judge in January ordered Cobb County school officials to immediately remove the stickers, which called evolution a theory, not a fact."

So if evolution is a theory, is it really science? We need a DBT on this one.

[furrycute]

You see evolution happening all around you. If you really want to speed up the process so you can actually observe in your life time, you apply aritificial selection instead of natural selection.

We have applied artificial selection to domesticated animals for over thousands of years. Dogs, pigs, cattles, etc. We have done the same thing with our crops.

And just take a look at the increasingly prevalent multi-drug resistant bacteria, that's the bacteria's response to our vampant use of antibiotics.

[agarwalro]

I agree.

Its not Science. Its belief. You can't teach beliefs.

SheepStar

I am in complete agreement.

[Clint DeBoer]

You see evolution happening all around you. If you really want to speed up the process so you can actually observe in your life time, you apply aritificial selection instead of natural selection.

That's micro-evolution and it's easily observed... turning a lizard into a bird, however is quite a different thing and lacks any proof. There isn't a lack of fossil evidence, mind you - in fact we have millions of fossils... It's just that none of them are transitional forms.

While it may seem to "make sense" to people that macroevolution occurred - lack of evidence, and a revelation in the study of molecular biology have made evolution a statistical impossibility. There are too many interdependent things involved (i.e. one thing needs another simultaneous process in order to occur - it cannot happen gradually over time).

The truth is that there is more science behind the study of intelligent design than evlution simply because eveolutionist scientists are very often taking what few observable facts they have and bending them to fit their theory instead of following the scientific method and studying the wealth available data "as is".

Note - this has nothing to do with "age of the earth" discussions.

I consider myself welel studied in the subject (both sides) and it is amazing how many people take it at face value because the schools have been pushing it now for over 20 years - even though the latest science now clearly says evolution is impossible. The problem is that "intelligent design" is automatically ruled out as a "religious" study and so kids are left with misleading and bad information.

[miklorsmith]

So, the current state of the world is the product of "intelligent" design? That's as much a statement of its impossibility as anything.

The fossils show animals that no longer exist. Current animal-fossils are not found in the same strata. It would be nice to have the whole path neatly laid out, alas millions of years of erosion and upheaval have partnered to leave a less-than-complete set of footprints to follow.

And, saying "the latest science clearly says evolution is impossible" cannot be a thorough statement of the science. Says who? The Christian Science Monitor?

[Tomorrow]

That's micro-evolution and it's easily observed... turning a lizard into a bird, however is quite a different thing and lacks any proof. There isn't a lack of fossil evidence, mind you - in fact we have millions of fossils... It's just that none of them are transitional forms.

While it may seem to "make sense" to people that macroevolution occurred - lack of evidence, and a revelation in the study of molecular biology have made evolution a statistical impossibility. There are too many interdependent things involved (i.e. one thing needs another simultaneous process in order to occur - it cannot happen gradually over time).

The truth is that there is more science behind the study of intelligent design than evlution simply because eveolutionist scientists are very often taking what few observable facts they have and bending them to fit their theory instead of following the scientific method and studying the wealth available data "as is".

Note - this has nothing to do with "age of the earth" discussions.

I consider myself welel studied in the subject (both sides) and it is amazing how many people take it at face value because the schools have been pushing it now for over 20 years - even though the latest science now clearly says evolution is impossible. The problem is that "intelligent design" is automatically ruled out as a "religious" study and so kids are left with misleading and bad information.

I think a little clarification might be in order.

First, it is thought that lizards turned into birds, not vice versa. There is some fossil evidence, found in China in the last decade, that indicates an evolutionary relationship...using microbiology.

Second, use of electrophoresis and other techniques to analyze molecular structure has for many years found statistical relationships amongst living diverse organisms, both floral and faunal. Evolutionary (including use of micro-) biology is nothing more than proving that two species are more closely related to each other than to some third thing.

Third, there is general scientific agreement that 'evolution' is not a gradual changing of 'things'. The evolution of a species, or any organized system is eventually caused by punctuated, dramatic, sometimes cataclysmic events, both genetic and environmental. (And multiple events can and do occur simultaneously to mark genetic shifts.) I offer the K Boundary layed down during the Cretaceous Period, a period that doomed poor T-Rex and his cousins. Successful (!) genetic shifts were cause for survival in worldwide populations (macro) as a result of a cometary impact.

Lastly, there certainly is not more science behind the 'intelligent design' principle than there is evolution. Of course, the definition of "science" can be whatever you make it...but you may not get consensus.

So, even with all that said....I agree. Evolution is a theory. The theory of evolution is just that.

But the preponderance of evidence and correct application of science says that the theory of evolution is the...gospel. (Sorry, I just couldn't resist.) It may end up being a conundrum in history when science reveals more about the process. But at least it doesn't presuppose 'intent' forced upon a happenstance, quantum world.

My .02. Good cheer.

[gnagel]

I don't see why both viewpoints aren't presented to students--along with some of the strengths and weaknesses of each position. IMO, neither the evolution nor the intelligent design stance has been proven.

Personally, I believe that God used the process of evolution to create the life forms that exist today. Why can't religion and science live in harmony?

[Tomorrow]

I don't see why both viewpoints aren't presented to students--along with some of the strengths and weaknesses of each position. IMO, neither the evolution nor the intelligent design stance has been proven.

Personally, I believe that God used the process of evolution to create the life forms that exist today. Why can't religion and science live in harmony?

I agree that there is no dialog that is dangerous or should be avoided...and that it makes sense to offer both of these 'theories' for open discussion. But there is that little matter left to us by our forefathers...namely, the separation of church and state. It's in the constitution.

I believe this matter will make it to the Supreme Court for final definition of what is 'religious' and what is not.