| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 7:17 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Yes, this issue is officially settled. Thank you, judge. |
Actually, this is only the beginning. I don't know for sure, but this will probably be taken to the supreme court eventually.
Kansas city board of educators are now the next test. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rok_the-boat
Joined: 24 Jan 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
What do you mean by that? Do you mean that the idea of creation or intelligent design is dead, or the idea that ID can be considered science is dead? |
All of the above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hypnotist
Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Location: I wish I were a sock
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Surprised nobody picked up on Sunday's Doonesbury... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."
---
"After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."
---
"The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications."
|
So do you think the fundies will label this guy as an "activist judge".  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rok_the-boat wrote: |
| flakfizer wrote: |
What do you mean by that? Do you mean that the idea of creation or intelligent design is dead, or the idea that ID can be considered science is dead? |
All of the above. |
Then you would be wrong. Look up gallup polls about creation or evolution and you will see that significant numbers of people still believe in Creation. Just beause some judge says it can't be classified as science doesn't mean it can't be true and it sure doesn't mean people will suddenly change their views. Pot is illegal in the US but I don't think that has changed the views of potheads who continue to argue that it's great, mellow stuff.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040216-113955-2061r.htm
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
| Then you would be wrong. Look up gallup polls about creation or evolution and you will see that significant numbers of people still believe in Creation. Just beause some judge says it can't be classified as science doesn't mean it can't be true and it sure doesn't mean people will suddenly change their views. |
The amount of people who believe in creation has nothing to do with whether it should be considered science. It also has nothing to do with whether creationism is true. People also used to believe that the world was flat. That world is not flat, and creationism is not science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| flakfizer wrote: |
| Then you would be wrong. Look up gallup polls about creation or evolution and you will see that significant numbers of people still believe in Creation. Just beause some judge says it can't be classified as science doesn't mean it can't be true and it sure doesn't mean people will suddenly change their views. |
The amount of people who believe in creation has nothing to do with whether it should be considered science. It also has nothing to do with whether creationism is true. People also used to believe that the world was flat. That world is not flat, and creationism is not science. |
None of which was the point. Someone said that both the idea that Creation is science AND the idea of creation itself are dead. The latter most certainly is not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's an interesting article on the commentary by the judge. I was surprised to hear his harsh words for those who testified for ID.
It will be interesting to see if this has any merit.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/151/31.0.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
| Satori wrote: |
| flakfizer wrote: |
| Then you would be wrong. Look up gallup polls about creation or evolution and you will see that significant numbers of people still believe in Creation. Just beause some judge says it can't be classified as science doesn't mean it can't be true and it sure doesn't mean people will suddenly change their views. |
The amount of people who believe in creation has nothing to do with whether it should be considered science. It also has nothing to do with whether creationism is true. People also used to believe that the world was flat. That world is not flat, and creationism is not science. |
None of which was the point. Someone said that both the idea that Creation is science AND the idea of creation itself are dead. The latter most certainly is not. |
Actually, you are misrepresenting what rok-the-boat said. "All of the above" was not in response to the question, "Is Creationism dead?" To say creationsim is dead would be to say religion is dead. None of us are quite that brain-dead, are we? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
