ID not required

[saltydawg]

Judge Rules Against Pa. 'Intelligent Design' Policy
By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 20, 2005; 12:00 PM

A federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled today that a public school district in the central part of the state cannot require the inclusion of "intelligent design" in biology classes as an alternative to evolution.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III, issuing his decision in a case that was heard in the fall, ruled that the school board in Dover, Pa., violated the Constitution when it ordered high school biology teachers to read to students a short statement that cast doubt on Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and offered intelligent design as an alternative theory on the origin and development of life.

The case produced one of the biggest courtroom battles over evolution since the landmark "Scopes Monkey Trial" in 1925, and it was closely watched in other jurisdictions that have seen heated debates between opponents and advocates of Darwin's groundbreaking 19th century theory.

After the Dover school board issued the requirement last year, 11 parents filed a lawsuit in federal court to block it on grounds that intelligent design was actually a thinly veiled new version of biblical creationism, which the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled cannot be taught in public schools.

In the meantime, all eight of the school board incumbents who favored teaching intelligent design were defeated in an election in November by candidates who opposed including it in the curriculum.

In his ruling today, Jones said several members of the Dover Area School Board repeatedly lied during the trial to cover their motives for promoting intelligent design even as they professed religious beliefs, the Associated Press reported.

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID [Intelligent Design] Policy," Jones wrote.

Jones said advocates of intelligent design "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors," adding that he did not believe the concept should not be studied and discussed, AP reported. But he concluded that "it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

[Churchlady]

We all know that nothing intelligent designed you, so just drop the charade O' Salty one.

[Dirtydawg]

What is more disturbing is the fact that Darwin's theory of the beginning of man is accepted as fact when it's not. ID is as viable, scientifically, as is Darwin's theory. Where is the rule that science and religion cannot be the same. I thought that science was the pursuit and acceptance of the truth regardless of what results one has gotten. It can be argued that those who oppose ID and tout Darwin's theory do so as much for religiously held beliefs than do those who support ID.

[Brian96]

Tricky thing, that science. The problem is that there really is no such thing as totally objective research. You cannot block out all of your preconceived ideas about a topic when you start studying it. From what I have seen, all of the data can easily be interpreted in just about any way you want. Even if evolution is real, it is too slow a process to accurately observe and measure. Everything else is heavily laden with conjecture. So if you make up your mind that an intelligent creator could not have been involved in causing the universe to exist and develop, then the evidence will support that. If you assume that an intelligent creator did all of this on purpose, then the evidence will support that as well. Most of the time I think expectations are helpful in scienc, like when you are working on a cure for cancer, you want to assume that one will be found. But in the area of origins, assumptions are not going to help you get to any objective truth. And in the end, assumptions may be all you have.

[Dirtydawg]

True enough, Brian, however I find it extremely hypocritical for the Darwinists to discount ID because it has it's roots in a faith based religion, however, in light of an abundance of years of excavations, there has yet to be found proven, definitive fossil evidence that shows evolution from the single smallest organism to what we have today. That in itself is one of the biggest indictments against evolution and was even mentioned by Darwin himself that if evolution were indeed true, there would be proof in the fossil evidence, which there hasn't been. What's the hypocrisy? That when presented with these facts, the Darwinists insist that the evidence will be produced even though after hundreds of years of digging it hasn't. They insist that you have to have faith that it will be found.

[saltydawg]

DD, suggest you go visit some museums of natural history. There is plenty in the fossil record to show that evolution is occurring. Thermopolis, WY has a very good dinosaur museum. Also, visit the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles, CA. They have some nice fossils of saber tooth tigers that live in the LA basin up to 5000 BC.

Your statement that the fossil record does not support evolution is incorrect. The plain fact of the matter is that you evolved from primates.......whether you accept it or not doesn't change that fact you are a primate. Go ahead and deny it, you little moneky.

[arkansasbob]

DD, suggest you go visit some museums of natural history. There is plenty in the fossil record to show that evolution is occurring. Thermopolis, WY has a very good dinosaur museum. Also, visit the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles, CA. They have some nice fossils of saber tooth tigers that live in the LA basin up to 5000 BC.

Your statement that the fossil record does not support evolution is incorrect. The plain fact of the matter is that you evolved from primates.......whether you accept it or not doesn't change that fact you are a primate. Go ahead and deny it, you little moneky.

that's pretty silly. dinosaurs and saber tooth cats are proof of evolution? how so? the fact of the matter is that NOT ONE missing link has ever been found. if there was ever a transitional species, 100 years of every paleantologist on earth looking for it would have turned up something. science is about exploring nature to find knowledge. the conclusion that there is or is not a creator is not science, but science can find evidence for or against such a conclusion -- and such evidence (for both sides) should be presented in science textbooks.

[saltydawg]

Missing link? There is no missing link. The scientists have all the bones they need although I'm sure they will find more as time goes on.

let me ask you this question arkbob, are you a primate?

[arkansasbob]

Missing link? There is no missing link. The scientists have all the bones they need although I'm sure they will find more as time goes on.

let me ask you this question arkbob, are you a primate?

apparently, according to commonly accepted methods of taxonomy, i am a primate. what's your point? in order for species to have evolved from other species, there have to be transitional species. how is it that no species has ever been found that can reasonably be constued as a transition between the predicessors of two modern species?

[duckbillplatty]

I can prove scientifically intelligent design based on one assumption.

That artificial intelligence equal to human intelligence is possible.

Given that assumption, it is very likely that you could create multiple intelligences inside of a simulation with programmed senses, etc... and you could create an exact copy of Earth with detailed physcs modeling, object creation and chaos. Therefore the Earth coule be simulated.

Extended, those intelligences could create new artificial intelligencies inside of that simuulation. This keeps snowballing until there are, in fact, an infinite number of similations.

Therefore, if there is one reality and infinite simulations of reality, then the chances of us not being designed by an intelligence are infinitely small. (1/infinity)

There you go. No "God" in there, but it is intelligent design. And most scientists will tell you AI is possible. Sorry. Intelligent Design should be in textbooks.

[saltydawg]

apparently, according to commonly accepted methods of taxonomy, i am a primate. what's your point? in order for species to have evolved from other species, there have to be transitional species. how is it that no species has ever been found that can reasonably be constued as a transition between the predicessors of two modern species?

The point being is that they have found other primate fossils which shows the evolutionary process over the past 6 million years for hominids. I think that you better go take a second look at the fossil record, how the size of the cranium of the hominids has gradually increased over the past 2 million years.

[saltydawg]

I can prove scientifically intelligent design based on one assumption.

That artificial intelligence equal to human intelligence is possible.

Given that assumption, it is very likely that you could create multiple intelligences inside of a simulation with programmed senses, etc... and you could create an exact copy of Earth with detailed physcs modeling, object creation and chaos. Therefore the Earth coule be simulated.

Extended, those intelligences could create new artificial intelligencies inside of that simuulation. This keeps snowballing until there are, in fact, an infinite number of similations.

Therefore, if there is one reality and infinite simulations of reality, then the chances of us not being designed by an intelligence are infinitely small. (1/infinity)

There you go. No "God" in there, but it is intelligent design. And most scientists will tell you AI is possible. Sorry. Intelligent Design should be in textbooks.

Don't know what you are smoking but sure would like to try some.
:icon_wink

[duckbillplatty]

Don't know what you are smoking but sure would like to try some.
:icon_wink

I'm just saying, if you wanna play in the realm of science, you better be ready to step up to the plate.

[Bulldog44]

If you check some of your records, a lot of the fossil heads that were found turned out to be simply monkeys. Also some other bit of news for you. There was a measurement of the dust that settles on the surface of the moon. It's thickness was measured over time and at the rate of collection that the moon aquired, the moon was aged at thousands of years, not millions. Also some scientist did their carbon dating on the Hawaii islands, the ones that have been here long enough for man to see form. These islands aged at millions of years using the technique, when the men knew that the island was only a few hudred years old. That same technique was used on a baby seal that died, and it's age came out in millions of years. Which was ludicrous because the thing just died.

I teach World History in high school and the first chapter deals with the evolution of man. I stand up in front of my class and tell them that I think this is all crap and to learn the vocabulary words for a quiz so you will know the names of things that idiots try and pass on to you as truth. on to chapter 2!!!

[saltydawg]

I'm just saying, if you wanna play in the realm of science, you better be ready to step up to the plate.

Oh, so you saying that you are a scientist?

You're in Fantasyland with your assumptions about AI and modeling. Next, you will be telling me that if we get 1 milllion monkeys typing that sooner or later one of them would type "Gone With The Wind."