Like it? Share it!

Banner


Reason Rally Logo
 

Sign up for news and updates!






Enter word seen below
Visually impaired? Click here to have an audio challenge played.  You will then need to enter the code that is spelled out.
Change image

CAPTCHA image
Please leave this field empty

Login Form



Children of The Panda (Or, Happy Birthday, Dover) PDF Print E-mail
Swift
Written by Matt Fiore   
Sunday, 20 December 2009 18:51

There is a lot of cynicism directed at the US courts, even amongst skeptics. The media loves to highlight miscarriages of justice and frivolous lawsuits. But every once in awhile, the stars align (figuratively of course) and everything goes perfectly. Four years ago today, intelligent design received a major black eye.  Happy fourth birthday, Kitzmiller v. Dover. (You look like a monkey and you smell like one too.)

For those of you blissfully unaware of how ridiculous the world can get, Kitzmiller v. Dover took place in Dover, Pennsylvania. It was the first time a court confronted the issue of intelligent design. Backed by the infamous Discovery Institute, the Dover school board voted to include a special warning sticker inside their biology textbooks that called attention to the “gaps” in the theory of evolution and pointed students towards the pseudo-biology reference book Of Pandas and People. Tammy Kitzmiller and ten other plaintiffs sued the school board in federal court for violating the establishment clause of the US Constitution, because they saw intelligent design as religious creationism in disguise. Judge John Jones’ strongly worded opinion unflinchingly favored the plaintiffs.

Perhaps “strongly-worded opinion” is a bit too diplomatic. A more accurate description of Jones’ decision would be “verbal castration.” Looking at his decision, it is pretty clear that Judge Jones stored up a lot of anger over the course of the five week trial and decided to unload it on the defendants in a single, learned burst. His opinion was well over 11,000 words long — almost three times longer than the average Supreme Court decision — and it didn’t skimp on the insults.  Jones lashed out and called the case “an utter waste of monetary and personal resources” and rebuked the school board for its “breathtaking inanity.” He forced the school district to pay the plaintiffs over a million dollars in legal fees and even recommended perjury charges to be filed against some of the defendants.  As a final insult, the rogue school board was voted out of office by the citizens of Dover, and the newly elected officials chose not to appeal the case.

Victory was sweet, but one shouldn’t overstate its value. The Kitzmiller case never went very high up the court ladder, so the decision only has precedential value to the middle district of Pennsylvania. That means that if intelligent design is taught in your area, the local court can completely ignore the Kitzmiller verdict if they choose. There are 93 other federal court districts, and that translates into 93 potential battlefields.  You’d better believe the intelligent design movement is still out there, itching for a legal victory. They are still fighting the bad fight.

A year before Kitzmiller made it to court, there was Selman v. Cobb Country. Like Kitzmiller, Selman involved a misleading warning sticker in biology books:

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

For various reasons, the Selman case spent more time in Georgia’s court than Kitzmiller, and was finally settled out of court in May 2006. Echoing Dover, the school board was forced to remove the sticker and paid the plaintiffs’ legal fees. Undoubtedly, Judge Jones’ decision played a major part in the outcome.

In May 2007, the Chesterfield County School board in Virginia considered teaching intelligent design in their biology classes and was pummeled with questions from well-meaning but ignorant parents. (Read the meeting’s minutes if you dare.) Ultimately, the school board begrudgingly decided that it would be unconstitutional to use textbooks that endorsed intelligent design after considering the advice of their lawyer. He cited, among other cases, Kitzmiller v. Dover.

In 2005, the University of California refused to recognize certain high school biology classes because they were “inconsistent with the viewpoints and knowledge of generally accepted in the scientific community.”  In response, the Association of Christian Schools International sued the university for infringing on the Christian students’ freedom of speech and freedom of religion.  In 2008, the court held that the UC policy was constitutional and fairly applied.  The appeal is still pending.  The safe bet is that the appeal will fail miserably.

Naturally, the battle isn’t limited to the courtroom.  In 2007, Representative Mike Lott tried to introduce Mississippi House Bill 625, which would allowed the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in public schools. Florida has considered a similar bill in 2009.  Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum even tried to take intelligent design to a nationwide with the Santorum Amendment.

For the last few decades, evolution has managed to defeat creationism in every major judicial and legislative contest. That is no excuse let down your guard. A few ignorant judges or senators and science education could be snapped back into the 1800s. The scientific community needs to maintain its vigilance so that the Panda Trial can have children of its own.

 

Trackback(0)
Comments (42)Add Comment
...
written by Otara, December 20, 2009
"For the last few decades, evolution has managed to defeat creationism in every major judicial and legislative contest."

Heartening that they didnt, but of course a wee bit disappointing that major court action was even needed to ensure basic science is taught in classrooms.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +6
I read the minutes...
written by Alencon, December 20, 2009
I read the minutes and they were scary, but not surprising.

There is a fundamental ignorance in American society about what science is, how it works and what its semantics mean. The single biggest problem is the word "Theory." They're using it with a small "t" and science uses it with a capital "T."

What is really frightening is there seemed to be NO ONE at that meeting that understood that there aren't competing "Theories." As far as science is concerned, there is one, and only one, unifying Theory in biology and that is the Modern Synthesis of Evolution and Genetics.

I blame our so-called journalists. The media has confused objectivity with equating all sides of an issue to be equal. They have abdicated their responsibility to educate the electorate by concluding that "balanced reporting" means treating all sides of an issue as equally valid when they are not. They allow opinion to be equated with facts, faith to be equated with evidence and total nonsense to be equated with 150 plus years of exacting scientific investigation.

Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now. Sorry about that, but this is topic guaranteed to make my eyes hurt.

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +19
Sauce for the goose...
written by RGE47, December 20, 2009
"A year before Kitzmiller made it to court, there was Selman v. Cobb County. Like Kitzmiller, Selman involved a misleading warning sticker in biology books:

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Perhaps there should be a corresponding warning sticker for creationist textbooks:

"This textbook contains material on creationism. Creationism is a religious belief, not a scientific theory, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Bet the creationists won't agree to this, though, despite their cries about "fairness" and "equal treatment"!

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +13
...
written by Otara, December 20, 2009
Im quite sure they would actually and they'd take any foot in the door they could get, their whole shtick is 'teach the controversy' rather than 'make a credible case first'.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by Kajabla61, December 20, 2009
To be truly equal every Bible should have the Selman sticker applied to it.

Can you imagine the din that would arise from that suggestion?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
Sorry
written by Kajabla61, December 20, 2009
I meant to say the Selman sticker as rewritten by RGE47:

"Perhaps there should be a corresponding warning sticker for creationist textbooks:

"This textbook contains material on creationism. Creationism is a religious belief, not a scientific theory, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by kenhamer, December 20, 2009
To watch a great PBS/Nova documentary on the subject, called "Intelligent Design on Trial", click on:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

Sadly, it only works in the US.

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by Trez, December 21, 2009
"To be truly equal every Bible should have the Selman sticker applied to it. Can you imagine the din that would arise from that suggestion?"

smilies/smiley.gif

Love it.

Would love to see a big ol' sticker placed on it saying "Reader Warning: Christianity is only a theory. The historical record and theories of biology, physics, astronomy, genetics, law and theology contained within this texts are only one of many available accounts and theories and should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered"

Or just have "Parental Advisory: Misleading Content"
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
..., Lowly rated comment [Show]
...
written by KingMerv00, December 21, 2009
That living beings change into different kinds has never been witnessed so which appears to be closer to theory?


Oh boy. Read this front to back: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Speciation is covered in there.

Many wrongly interpret the account to mean 7 literal days.


Like all of Christianity did for 1900 years? They amazingly found the truth when science kindly pointed it out to them. Pretty convenient.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +11
..., Lowly rated comment [Show]
...
written by Aepervius, December 21, 2009
Amazingly popsaw it is not up to us to prove the bible wrong, but up to the cflaimant to prove the bible right. Which will be difficult with IIRC two different account of creation , with out of order steps as to what we know. And it is INDEED very relevant that to *ALL* christian in the last 1900 years, none AFAIK even mentionned that this could be anything but 7 DAYS. Only when the theories rose that the earth must be much older, people turned apologetic and said "yeah but the hebvrew word could also means Era" or "a day to god could actually be 2 billion years".
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
@popsaw
written by Christie, December 21, 2009
Who say a creative day is unknown?

From Genesis itself......"4: And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5: God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. ...that seems pretty clear to me that a creation day is 1 day"....

.....also "14: And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15: and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 16: And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. 17: And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, 18: to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19: And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day."

Seems very clear to me we are talking 7 x 24hr periods for creation and that the sun and moon rule them.

"Many wrongly interpret the account to mean 7 literal days" ........ or it seems that you as with every other person that reads and tries to explain the text in the Bible, tends to take literal and non-literal interpretations as best suits their needs.

My thoughts, I think that the Genesis script is, as with other early attempts by various centers of civilized man, is to explain his origins. Religions ruling the day, obviously meant that some divine power was part of the creation story.

Thankfully, the earth does not rest upon a turtles back!....sorry who said the Judeo/Christian story is the only alternative to the scientific theories of the origin of life? smilies/grin.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +6
Important Organization
written by stevekelner, December 21, 2009
One of the key players in Kitzmiller v. Dover was the National Center for Science Education, which helped provide briefing and experts for the trial. The NCSE is truly a stalwart in the battle against creationism in the classroom, and a great site to keep up with the latest news as well as providing links to useful educational content. Plus, they have a sense of humor (see "Project Steve"- and if you're a scientist Steve by all means sign up), which is a powerful weapon against solemn nonsense.
Support them!
http://ncse.com/
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
...
written by KingMerv00, December 21, 2009
You have not discredited nor shown where the bible is wrong in your post. Regarding the link you posted. It is not relevant to my post statement which addressed the issue of 'living beings'reproducing like for like not change beneath the species level


You didn't read the link then because it discusses observed speciation. Here is one that is even more specific (no pun intended): http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I also recommend you look up "ring pecies": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by KingMerv00, December 21, 2009
Uh...I meant "ring species. *Stupid left ring finger*
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by minusRusty, December 21, 2009
...the Dover school board voted to include a special warning sticker inside their biology textbooks that called attention to the “gaps” in the theory of evolution and pointed students towards the pseudo-biology reference book Of Pandas and People.


No, they voted to have _a statement read to the students_ at the beginning of the school year; voting on the stickers placed in the textbooks was (as stated later in the entry) in Georgia.

-Rusty
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by cootey59, December 21, 2009
From Genesis itself......"4: And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5: God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. ...that seems pretty clear to me that a creation day is 1 day"....

.....also "14: And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15: and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 16: And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. 17: And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, 18: to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19: And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day."

Seems very clear to me we are talking 7 x 24hr periods for creation and that the sun and moon rule them.


Except that this makes no sense in the light ( excuse the pun ) of what we now know ......... how can you have days and nights - 3 of them ! before you even have the Sun ( the moon being irrelevant to this )..... not to mention the fact that the moon does NOT rule the night, it is as equally visible during the day as it is the night and even when it IS visible during the night there are large chunks of this night when it isn't ..... ( hope you can follow this ).....
on top of all this the Sun is actually stuck where it is in the Solar System and the only reason we have a 'day' at all is because the Earth rotates on it's axis ...... the Sun does not Rule the day ..... the Earth rotating does .....
are you seriously suggesting that all the billions of galaxies and all their billions of stars were created in one day ....... and only to make the sky look pretty ? ..... and this pale blue dot of a planet is the most important thing in the Universe ???
we know the Sun is approx 5 billion years old .... it wasn't created in one day or one thousand days ..... it coalesced out of a large cloud of dust and gas ...... over millions of years .... Genesis is a Fairy Tale ..... at best a primitive story to try and explain to primitive people how 'it' all began ..... but it is wrong on so many levels .....
try reading that talk origins site you were linked to ...... it will at least get you started on the right track .....
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
@cootey59
written by Christie, December 21, 2009
Look like you read my post wrong, silly duffer. It pays to read all of it properly before your respond. I was quoting Genesis to make the point that it seems to 'read' as 7 days and not the, "non-literal" 7 days alluded to by popsaw, and further more, how people read it as different interpretations for their own purposes...as with most text found in the bible. Note my other comments as to what I believe the story of Genesis is...a story, ie: early civilized man's interpretation of his beginning... with religious overtones. You obviously did not get the pun about the Turtles Back being another story of creation (I think it was the Iroqouis for this one), to demonstrate how ridiculous some of the creation stories can be...and hence my take on the matter.
I am of the firm opinion the Earth is 4.6B years old, this Universe 13 odd B years old, and we probably started from the last big crunch, before the more famous big bang.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
How we won the MDC...
written by drpain, December 21, 2009
Looks like your website is under attack from supernatural forces...


http://dyn.politico.com/member...id=3449994


you really need to add comment moderation to your blasphemy...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -7
@drpain
written by Dooyoowoowoo, December 21, 2009
Yeh man, supernatural forces, I can do battle with them, I've seen Ghostbusters, I read Pratchett.

I'll have half a pound of what you're smokin'.

Arse.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by KingMerv00, December 22, 2009
minusRusty,

Mea culpa. Over the last four years, the Selman case and the Kitzmiller case have merged in my memory. I remember that the teachers were forced to read a statement allowed and that the statement was printed IN the books.

Goes to show you that human memory ain't worth much. Sorry again.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by popsaw, December 22, 2009
The bible says in Genesis 1:24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." This idea of living creatures producing according their kind is accurate and observable and therefore worthy of consideration. The so called "macro evolution" is not addressed in bible writings and therefore is not relevant in an evolution versus the bible discussion unless it is considered that it somehow discredits the bible.
Regarding the concept of a creative day, for those interested...
How Long Were the Creative Days?
How Long Were the Creative Days?
What about the length of the creative days? Were they literally 24 hours long? Some claim that because Moses—the writer of Genesis—later referred to the day that followed the six creative days as a model for the weekly Sabbath, each of the creative days must be literally 24 hours long. (Exodus 20:11) Does the wording of Genesis support this conclusion?
No, it does not. The fact is that the Hebrew word translated “day” can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. For example, when summarizing God’s creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4) In addition, on the first creative day, “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” (Genesis 1:5) Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term “day.” Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long.
How long, then, were the creative days? The wording of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 indicates that considerable lengths of time were involved.
Creations Appear Gradually
Moses wrote his account in Hebrew, and he wrote it from the perspective of a person standing on the surface of the earth. These two facts, combined with the knowledge that the universe existed before the beginning of the creative periods, or “days,” help to defuse much of the controversy surrounding the creation account. How so?
A careful consideration of the Genesis account reveals that events starting during one “day” continued into one or more of the following days. For example, before the first creative “day” started, light from the already existing sun was somehow prevented from reaching the earth’s surface, possibly by thick clouds. (Job 38:9) During the first “day,” this barrier began to clear, allowing diffused light to penetrate the atmosphere.
On the second “day,” the atmosphere evidently continued to clear, creating a space between the thick clouds above and the ocean below. On the fourth “day,” the atmosphere had gradually cleared to such an extent that the sun and the moon were made to appear “in the expanse of the heavens.” (Genesis 1:14-16) In other words, from the perspective of a person on earth, the sun and moon began to be discernible. These events happened gradually.
The Genesis account also relates that as the atmosphere continued to clear, flying creatures—including insects and membrane-winged creatures—started to appear on the fifth “day.” However, the Bible indicates that during the sixth “day,” God was still in the process of “forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.”—Genesis 2:19.
Clearly, the Bible’s language makes room for the possibility of some major events during each “day,” or creative period, to have occurred gradually rather than instantly, perhaps some of them even lasting into the following creative “days.”





report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -6
@popsaw
written by stevekelner, December 22, 2009
If your contention is that the Bible is "right" and evolution is "just a theory," as you essentially state above, I'm a bit baffled as to why you are posting here, popsaw, given that this is hardly fertile ground for you. You have also misunderstood the scientific definition of "theory" (as indeed most nonscientists do), and you have apparently proposed the collected and multiply translated oral legends of illiterate itinerant goatherders as an accurate description of prehistory, with no evidence whatsoever. That is not a theory even in common terms, that is a postulate, an assumed axiom. Incidentally, there are two different orders of creation in Genesis; how do you propose to reconcile them There is a reason that most religions - indeed, most Jews and Christians -- do not take the Bible literally. And for the record, "macroevolution" is a term invented by "creation scientists" (an oxymoron) to explain away the fact that evolution occurs. Furthermore, evolution has been observed directly.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by popsaw, December 22, 2009
Yes, I do believe the bible to be accurate although religion grossly misrepresents it of course. I post here when I see intelligent design under attack as though it is unscientific when all we see in the universe is order, staggering mathematical complexity, this is before even considering the human brain or the instinctive nature of migratory birds.
Regarding the short scripture I quoted from Genesis which read And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." Are you saying here that the bible is wrong and that living creatures do not in fact reproduce according to their own kind?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -5
Intelligent design is unscientific
written by stevekelner, December 22, 2009
You misunderstand me, popsaw, but let me answer your question: Living creatures do indeed reproduce according to their own kind. But that kind evolves! Incremental change can lead quite easily to new species -- though it is possible to get more abrupt changes genetically as well. Obviously you missed the post earlier on "ring species." You can have two iterations within a species that are different enough that continued iterations lead to greater and greater distinction.
Intelligent design is by definition unscientific, because it is not disprovable, nor does it use the scientific method. It says, essentially "anything we don't understand must be attributable to an intelligent designer far greater than ourselves." This is explicitly a rejection of the possibility of additional data; it's saying "there are things man was not meant to know." That's not what science does. I am a research psychologist, and tolerably well acquainted with the complexity of the human brain, but the progression from reptile brain to mammal brain to primate brain is by no means incomprehensible, and we more learn every year about how it fits together. This is what science does.
As it happens, every single example the ID people have come up with thus far (clotting, the eye, etc.) has been decisively proven to have explanations within evolutionary theory. Don't believe me? Go to the NCSE: http://ncse.com/
There's even a section for the religious, since most religions have no beef with evolution.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by popsaw, December 22, 2009
I accept that evolutionists contend that living creatures evolve I am merely making a defence of scripture whereby it has been suggested that the Genesis account is inaccurate. Moreover, it has been implied in the article that the teaching of intelligent design should be discouraged. I would say that the Genesis creation account does not conflict with science and unless the Genesis creation account can be shown to be unscientific, it is not improper to use it as a basis for intelligent design education.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -5
...
written by Willy K, December 22, 2009
Moreover, it has been implied in the article that the teaching of intelligent design should be discouraged.


Here is a summation of all there is to ID. "Evolution is wrong, but we don't have to prove ID is right." Who in their right mind would think there is any value in teaching that ID-iotic phrase to anyone?

ID is NOT science according to one of the most vocal proponents of it. Read Behe's testimony.

IMHO Genesis is an interesting idea written by an unknown Human at a time when there was little idea about how the Universe works. Similar to how a Greek postulated that matter was made up of smaller and smaller bits, but not infinitely small bits.

Evolution is a fact, the theories of how life evolves are varied, complex and open to investigation. Outright denial is not a form of investigation. smilies/tongue.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Willy K, December 22, 2009
CORRECTION:
I just re-read Behe's testimony.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html#day11pm132

He actually stated that ID is a valid theory just as astrology is a valid theory.

Read the entire testimony to see how and why Judge Jones made his scathing decision.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
Let me say it again: ID is unscientific
written by stevekelner, December 22, 2009
popsaw, you have completely missed my point, and evidently the one in the NCSE site as well. Intelligent Design should not be taught, period. It conflates religion and science to the detriment of science -- and to the detriment of many religions, as well. Certainly one should teach the creation story if you want to teach it; just don't try to paint it as "science," when it is not one.
Genesis is appropriate for religious education; it can be seen as a metaphor for the beginnings of the world; it is not in any form an accurate depiction of the early days of the universe as far as we have been able to tell, nor can it be if you take it literally. "Using Genesis as a basis for intelligent design education" merely piles fake science on religion. Use Genesis to teach religion, use science to teach science -- leave ID out of it.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Alencon, December 22, 2009
A point of clarification. Macroevolution is NOT a term invented by creationists. It is a valid scientific term referring to evolution at or above the species level. You can learn more here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...tion.html.

However, creationists tend to use the term to imply that different processes are involved than those which drive microevolution. This is not true. The processes are the same; the timeframe is simply usually longer.

As for popsaw, he may well be correct that the Hebrew in Genesis does NOT necessarily mean a 24 hour day. The term used is “yom ehad” which to my understanding simply means “day one.” Apparently a 24 hour day is normally expressed using the definitive article and would have been “hayyom harison” or “THE first day.”

Therefore Genesis and Evolution are not necessarily incompatible.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Walk, December 22, 2009
popsaw,

Just curious, which of the two conflicting creation accounts in Genesis do you believe is the "accurate" one?

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
@Alencon
written by stevekelner, December 22, 2009
My mistake. And incidentally, I agree that Genesis and Evolution are not necessarily incompatible; only if you take Genesis literally, which is what I said above.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by KingMerv00, December 22, 2009
Moreover, it has been implied in the article that the teaching of intelligent design should be discouraged.


Implied? I'm pretty sure I went way beyond implying.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
@Christie
written by cootey59, December 22, 2009
oops ...... my bad .... looks like I should have directed that at popsaw .... having re-read your post, I see my haste to jump to print was extremely premature ...... damn this Christmas workload ..... bah humbug ! smilies/wink.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
atheism is dead
written by drdeath, December 22, 2009



Looks like your website is under attack from supernatural forces…

http://dyn.politico.com/member...id=3449994

you really need to add comment moderation to your blasphemy…
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -6
Stevekelner
written by popsaw, December 22, 2009
You say "Intelligent Design should not be taught"
I assume that by this you mean it should not be taught in relation to the origins of life because clearly intelligent design does exist and is evident in human achievement. It must be understood by your comments that you feel the capacity for intelligent design only exists amongst intelligent life on earth. Some feel that intelligence and the capacity for intelligent design exists beyond the earth and critical thinking leads them to believe that there is an intelligent creator. If the creation account in Genesis is ever shown to be in error, I will reconsider.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
...
written by Trez, December 23, 2009
@popsaw
I think the majority of the people on these boards would say that Intelligent Design doesn't exist. Its simply that science doesn't have all the answers yet.

Just because we are ignorant of the full facts of the creation of the universe doesn't mean that it should automatically be attributed to God.

Throughout the ages, human beings have made the mistake of attributed phenomena which they cannot explain to the influence of a higher being. And slowly but surely, science and critical thinking are providing answers to all of those questions.

Intelligent Design is the same principle. Its a theory that says "We don't understand X. Therefore it must be the work of a higher intelligence". Which in the past hasn't proven to be too successful
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
@popsaw
written by stevekelner, December 23, 2009
You are playing with words, popsaw. I think you know what I mean. I am not referring to intelligent design in the sense of design by intelligence, I am referring to the "Intelligent Design Hypothesis" (or ID) regarding evolution, which claims macroevolution does not exist and that complex life is the product of a designer, who, despite obfuscation, is clearly intended to be God. We have used this term throughout this discussion, and the capitalization of the words should make that clear. ID is a reformatting of "Creation Science." My statement is clear: it should not be taught, because it is not a science, it merely pretends to be one. I never said anything about whether a Creator exists; and indeed I said evolution and Genesis are compatible as long as you don't take Genesis literally, because if you do, then science and Genesis have indeed come into conflict. You are asserting (repeatedly) that if Genesis is shown to be in error, you will reconsider, but in fact you are rejecting any scientific source for this. If you take Genesis literally, then it is categorically in error relative to the vast amount of evidence we have that the Earth is 4.7 billion years old, that life developed into species via evolution, and so forth.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Walk, December 23, 2009
popsaw,

In case you missed my question, I'll ask it again - - which of the two conflicting creation accounts in Genesis do you believe is the "accurate" one?

Also, do you believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

Thank you.


report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by The SonicGamer, December 24, 2009
@popsaw
I see what you're trying to say and everything, but here's the problem.
We've observed new species, we've seen genetic changes in offspring, we've seen beneficial mutations in humans and animals, we have a strong theory that agrees with all fields of science, astronomy, biology, geology, ect.
But you know what we havent seen? We've never seen something being created! That's what ID states, that living creatures poofed into existence out of thin air by a magical space daddy. We have the fossils, we have the evidence in geology, genetics, and so much more. The theory of Evolution is FEASIBLE, and until new evidence comes along and shows Evolution to be wrong, which is highly unlikely since it would have to explain why it SEEMS right in every field of science, it's what we accept as the explanation for the diversity of life.
DIVERSITY, NOT origins. Abiogenesis is working on that, so if you want to argue that, fine. But even if we all came to accept that God caused Abiogenesis, then you'd still have to accept that he also went on to direct Evolution, and the Genesis account still cant be taken literally.
Like other people have said, you want God? Fine, you can believe in him, you can believe, as many Christian scientists do, that he directed evolution, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt teach Evolution is class. Evolution still stands as the best evident truth we have for the diversity of life.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
biblical fiction
written by vino, December 28, 2009
Quotes from the bible prove nothing. The bible is a book of myths and legends collected and edited by powerful men with an agenda.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy
Last Updated on Sunday, 20 December 2009 19:01