Jump to content

🐵 E V O L U T I O N 🐵


sppunk

Recommended Posts

p0300

abx

URGENT

AP-EVOLUTION DEBATE, 1ST LD

Federal judge in Pennsylvania rules 'intelligent design' can't be taught in schools

Eds: UPDATES with ruling

By MARTHA RAFFAELE

Associated Press Writer

 

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) - A federal judge ruled Tuesday that "intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district.

 

The Dover Area School Board violated the Constitution when it ordered that its biology curriculum must include "intelligent design," the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled Tuesday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 278
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by Five0pd310

Since neither option can be proven, I think they should both be taught, at the very least, as theories. Both have evidence, and both require faith. I say they should either teach both or neither.

That's always been my stance as well, Five-O.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Five0pd310

Since neither option can be proven, I think they should both be taught, at the very least, as theories. Both have evidence, and both require faith. I say they should either teach both or neither.

 

Yes and intelligent design can be taught in the church and evolution can be taught in the realm of academia.

 

And just to clarify, evolution in and of itself is a fact accepted by a majority of the scientific community. The mechanisms that cause evolution, just how evolution got us to where we are today and where it is taking us next, are completly theoretical. That's to say, with the exception of fundamentalists, most educated humans accept the fact that evolution occured and focus on proving the theories surronding how and why we evolved.

 

So you're partly right, evolution, like anything else in science involves theories, but it is not a theory in and of itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a violation of the Constitutional protections of the Pa. and US constitutions in that it helps to either undermine or establish religion in public schools, and if a federal court's gotta step in and help solve the problem then so be it. States rights aren't all they're cracked up to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Camusmind
Originally posted by Five0pd310

Since neither option can be proven, I think they should both be taught, at the very least, as theories. Both have evidence, and both require faith. I say they should either teach both or neither.

 

Yes and intelligent design can be taught in the church and evolution can be taught in the realm of academia.

 

And just to clarify, evolution in and of itself is a fact accepted by a majority of the scientific community. The mechanisms that cause evolution, just how evolution got us to where we are today and where it is taking us next, are completly theoretical. That's to say, with the exception of fundamentalists, most educated humans accept the fact that evolution occured and focus on proving the theories surronding how and why we evolved.

 

So you're partly right, evolution, like anything else in science involves theories, but it is not a theory in and of itself.

 

 

I wasn't aware that any proof existed for the THEORY of evolution beyond the FAITH that the scientific community puts into it. It's with almost a religious zeal that they show when their FAITH in this THEORY is challenged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by sppunk

This is a violation of the Constitutional protections of the Pa. and US constitutions in that it helps to either undermine or establish religion in public schools, and if a federal court's gotta step in and help solve the problem then so be it. States rights aren't all they're cracked up to be.

 

I can't wait until this case reaches the Roberts Supreme Court with its new Justice Alito on board with Scalia and Thomas. We'll see then whether intelligent design can or cannot be taught in public schools. :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if they uphold the Constitution the ruling won't change. The federal judge is a very staunch Republican, by the way, who graduated from the Dickenson School of Law, which is one of the most conservative law schools in the nation.

 

What I find funny is ID and evolution aren't opposites. ID requires evolution to be a theory in order for it to exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Colmesneilfan1

The schools are NOT establishing a religion by teaching Intelligent Design along with evolution. BOTH are theories and should both be taught as such.

 

You keep on calling evolution a "theory".

 

I'll agree that Darwin's ideas represent ONE theory of evolution, but evolution itself is accepted fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by sppunk

Colmes, ID presents evolution as fact.

 

ID is a theory as well. Neither have been proven by any of their supporters. Neither have been proven by science NOR by the religious scholars of the world. BOTH should be taught in schools as theories of the origins of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's amazing to turn on Bill O'Reilly and listen to how much they think this decision was a "bad" "activist" decision "even though the judge is a republican appointed by george w. bush"

 

the decision was a sound application of supreme court precedent; decisions such as Lemon, Edwards, and McLean are well-established and well-reasoned decisions on First Amendment doctrine

 

i mean, isn't this a big part of what we left europe for? shouldn't the local governing bodies be stopped from imposing religion on schoolchildren, most of whom can't choose whether to attend that school or not? intelligent design is nothing more than creation science dressed up to fit post-Edwards federal jurisprudence

 

again, READ THE CASE...at least part of it; take it in; see the precedent; see the outright, baldface LIES that were told DURING the trial...these people are so hungry to get christianity taught in schools that they're turning away from one of the basics tenets of any religion (See Commandment #9), swearing out false testimony

 

www.cnn.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And its absolutely jaw-on-the-floor stunning to me that theyre now playing this up as both an "activist judge" thing and, oh my god, an anti-science thing. they obviously dont believe their own lies with this so thats not what im talking about, but rather that they have got to have balls of steal to bring up such a twisted load. it truly shocked me. shocked. i shook and had my mouth agape. check out this:

 

"The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work," said Dr. John West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, the leading think tank researching intelligent design.

 

and this

 

"A thousand opinions by a court that a particular scientific theory is invalid will not make that scientific theory invalid," said Mr. Thompson, the president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest firm that says it promotes Christian values. "It is going to be up to the scientists who are going to continue to do research in their labs that will ultimately determine that."

 

The judge is a raging republican (appointed by George W. Bush in 2002) from one of the most conservative law schools in the nation (Dickinson, which is about 15 miles from my house). So much for the 'liberal activist' argument the above goons spouted forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Camusmind

 

Yes and intelligent design can be taught in the church and evolution can be taught in the realm of academia.

 

And just to clarify, evolution in and of itself is a fact accepted by a majority of the scientific community. The mechanisms that cause evolution, just how evolution got us to where we are today and where it is taking us next, are completly theoretical. That's to say, with the exception of fundamentalists, most educated humans accept the fact that evolution occured and focus on proving the theories surronding how and why we evolved.

 

So you're partly right, evolution, like anything else in science involves theories, but it is not a theory in and of itself.

 

I agree and freely admit that people / things evolve. We are evolving and adapting to our surroundings as I type this post. However, evolution had not been mentioned in this thread. The question is that teachers are required to teach that creatures slithered from a puddle of primordial ooze 10 billion years ago. And yes, that is a theory that, to me, takes more "shots in the dark" faith than believing that life was created by an intelligent being. This was not a question of evolution being taught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Five0pd310

 

 

I agree and freely admit that people / things evolve. We are evolving and adapting to our surroundings as I type this post. However, evolution had not been mentioned in this thread. The question is that teachers are required to teach that creatures slithered from a puddle of primordial ooze 10 billion years ago. And yes, that is a theory that, to me, takes more "shots in the dark" faith than believing that life was created by an intelligent being. This was not a question of evolution being taught.

 

I dont except anything on "Faith". I demand evidence in regards to evolution and ID. The problem is that their is more credible evidence for the theory of evolution that ID in my opinion. I do believe that they should both be taught in school because they are both very interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you believe in evolution, you must then believe that lighning charged a single cell and gave a heartbeat to some form of cell that eventually became you and I. What caused the lightning? What created the slime? What are the odds that everything was just so delicate and perfect for our planet to be the precise distance from a star, in a perfect orbit, with the perfect amount of density so that gravity is neither too little or too great, with an atmosphere that completely and perfectly sustains ALL living things?

 

:blink:

 

That's a lot of faith!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you guys adhire to the "Something cant come from nothing" theory? That would also apply to God. Would it not? Where did he come from? How is it he was always? How is that anymore possible than the theory of evolution?:shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by strawberry66

So you guys adhire to the "Something cant come from nothing" theory? That would also apply to God. Would it not? Where did he come from? How is it he was always? How is that anymore possible than the theory of evolution?:shrug:

 

Because the Bible told them so....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by OBTS

I know this...

 

A: I don't really need to know the answer.

&

B: I'll find out the answers to all of life's questions in Heaven.

 

 

 

Will you?

 

A: I don't really need to know the answer either.

&

B: You'll make delicious worm food.:tongue:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Mr. P changed the title to 🐵 E V O L U T I O N 🐵

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...