Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’

[dstark]

<p><a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051222/ts_nm/science_evolution_dc;_ylt=AjLsX_w5H61oCPBz213eexkDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl[/url]”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051222/ts_nm/science_evolution_dc;_ylt=AjLsX_w5H61oCPBz213eexkDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[itstoomuch]

<p>ID thinkers: Would ID allow for a space traveling species create Earth and Humans? I am reminded Star Trek:Wrath of Khan, where Kirk’s wife and son creates a new world in a science project called Genesis. Also would this theory allow for some horny space traveller, who fornicated with the then, most intelligent creature on Earth (chimpanzees), thus creating a new species- Humans?</p>

[isacc]

<p>with all the double talk of our leaders and giving of opinions by people who have no real understanding of the topic, finally a person to respect judge jones…</p>

[citygirlsmom]

<p>The Flying Spaghetti Monster!!! Who is to disprove its existence as the IDer?</p>

<p>If we accept ID as “science” we might as well think about the olden days when we “bled” people to get rid of the devil, or drilled holes in the head to let out the evil spirits</p>

<p>Egad</p>

<p>If we don’t understand it it must be magic, i guess</p>

<p>Get interview on NPR the other day, Michael Krasney, with regards to ID. One group of “scientists” are the ones pushing it, all connected, lying, using the word “empyrical”- and when ever they were questioned on the science, the fall back answer was, that is why we have the fact of ID, it was really quite interesting hearing the same talking points when real science was thrown at the ID supporters</p>

<p>What a bunch of whooey</p>

[mini]

<p>“If we accept ID as “science” we might as well think about the olden days when we “bled” people to get rid of the devil, or drilled holes in the head to let out the evil spirits?”</p>

<p>You mean it doesn’t work? :eek:</p>

[dstark]

<p>citygirlsmom, I think the judge read your arguments against ID on that 800 post thread. You were very accurate in your arguments. And it was a Bush appointed judge. :)</p>

[NJres]

<p>Well, evolution is after all, “just a theory.” You have your theory and we have our theory. Or as we used to say, We do our analysis… and you do your (ur) analysis!!</p>

[digmedia]

<p>citygirlsmom - Pastafarians Unite!!</p>

<p>In *Hens Teeth and Horses Toes<a href=“%5Burl%5Dhttp://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_fact-and-theory.html”>/i</a>, Steven J. Gould says:

The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream…</p>

<p>Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered…</p>

<p>In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms…</p>

<p>Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: “I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection’s] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.”</p>

<p>I am both angry at and amused by the creationists; but mostly I am deeply sad. Sad for many reasons. Sad because so many people who respond to creationist appeals are troubled for the right reason, but venting their anger at the wrong target… faceless and bureaucratic state power intrudes more and more into our lives and removes choices that should belong to individuals and communities. I can understand that school curricula, imposed from above and without local input, might be seen as one more insult on all these grounds. But the culprit is not, and cannot be, evolution or any other fact of the natural world. Identify and fight our legitimate enemies by all means, but we [evolutionists] are not among them.

</p>

<p>I have not heard that last point raised before, but it has the ring of truth. On one level, perhap, ID is internalized by people as a way of trying to regain some local control of their kids’ education. Now I have a little more understanding of why people are vocal on this issue.</p>

[FountainSiren]

<p>

“If we accept ID as “science” we might as well think about the olden days when we “bled” people to get rid of the devil, or drilled holes in the head to let out the evil spirits”

CGM, argument by analogy only works if the analogy you draw parallels the case in point. Accepting ID as science is hardly akin to torture, unless the “torture” you reference is more in line with the ‘tortured souls’ of black-dressed-emo-singers who are tortured-artists one and all…rather than those calamities perpetrated in the Tower of London by the secular powers of the day. </p>

<p>Hey, way back when, the Big Bang was thought to be way too religious, or religious-like—thus the contortions of the steady-state theory, and Einstein’s absurd cosmological constant. </p>

<p>I say good riddance to the Dover Case…it never presented itself as, and barely feigned a veneer of, science—to me—but rather slugged it out in a battle of local culture and politics.</p>

[itstoomuch]

<p>CityGM #24; mini #25; FS #29:</p>

<p>There could be ancedotal evidence that bleeding and additional hole-in-head improved the patient’s quality of life. </p>

<p>For those who wish to believe in black&deckering the body, good for them. This will eventually lead to improvement of the species and quick removal of certain parts of society. Why wait for random mutations and slow evolution processes when self, “natural” selection works faster? Intelligent Designer(s) work in mysterious ways! </p>

<p>Just think, we could be children of Captain James T. Kirk, ID’er. and ignorer of the “Prime Directive.”</p>