 |
|
|
"A terrible earthquake is going to break the oceanic earth crust under the Pacific Ocean by the year 1996 AD
-- The Return of Jupiter
|
|
| |
Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum
Posted on Tuesday, December 20 @ 09:47:36 PST by John |
|
Windpressor submitted: "HARRISBURG, Pa. - "Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.
Article Link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate"
|
| |
|
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum (Score: 1)
 by Ransom on Tuesday, December 20 @ 09:59:32 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | | Let the hand-wringing begin! |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum (Score: 1)
 by Virgil on Tuesday, December 20 @ 10:31:59 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said.
Isn't that nice?! Another example of outrageous judicial activism! |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Ransom on Tuesday, December 20 @ 12:06:36 PST
- by Virgil on Tuesday, December 20 @ 14:04:40 PST
- by Ed on Tuesday, December 20 @ 14:15:05 PST
- by Virgil on Tuesday, December 20 @ 14:50:56 PST
- by Parker on Tuesday, December 20 @ 20:59:17 PST
- by Slippery on Wednesday, December 21 @ 08:42:36 PST
- by mazuur on Wednesday, December 21 @ 09:06:52 PST
- by Ransom on Wednesday, December 21 @ 10:05:47 PST
- by JL on Wednesday, December 21 @ 12:30:56 PST
- by Mick on Tuesday, December 20 @ 17:10:49 PST
- by Islamaphobe on Tuesday, December 20 @ 17:16:48 PST
- by Windpressor on Tuesday, December 20 @ 18:12:28 PST
- by Kyle Peterson on Thursday, December 22 @ 07:49:37 PST
- by Ed on Thursday, December 22 @ 14:08:03 PST
- by Kyle Peterson on Friday, December 23 @ 13:04:33 PST
- by Ed on Friday, December 23 @ 14:01:07 PST
- by Kyle Peterson on Friday, December 23 @ 14:59:52 PST
- by Ed on Friday, December 23 @ 16:04:57 PST
- by Islamaphobe on Wednesday, December 21 @ 09:58:05 PST
Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum (Score: 1)
 by Islamaphobe on Tuesday, December 20 @ 17:36:45 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | | In 1925, the State of Tennessee passed a stupid law that prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution. That law was upheld in the famous Stokes trial, but the practical effect of the trial was to discredit the effort to suppress the teaching of evolution. In 2005, an entrenched scientific and educational establishment is doing its darnedest to prevent an objective examination of the deficiencies of the theory of evolution from occurring and to use the courts to prohibit schools from allowing science courses to consider the possibility that the evidence objectively favors ID. What an irony! Unless evolutionists can start coming up with "half-bats" and other evidence supporting their cherished theory, however, I suspect that they are ultimately going to find themselves as discredited as the Tennessee legislature of 1925. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum (Score: 1)
 by Ed on Tuesday, December 20 @ 18:21:55 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Now for some hilarity (at least for those who are able to think).
In today's local paper (a.k.a. The Record Eagle, or "The Bush Sucks Press"), a letter to the editor stated that ID doesn't work due to some "abnormal absurdities", e.g., the "male nipple." After reading the letter, I realized the "abnormal absurdity" that is the writer.
Let me explain (for those who can't think): evolution argues for the adaptation of creatures, due mostly to function or protection. If this were true, evolution would never have caused the existence of the male nipple in the first place, unless of course, humans were originally some kind of "transgendered" creature (which would make the Gay and Lesbian Alliance very happy). And even if that were the case (that fathers used to nurse their young), they are no longer capable of doing so - ergo, evolution would have caused the extinction of the male nipple due to its non-utility.
However, as we all know (and for those who cannot think - you may want to look in the mirror while not wearing a shirt), we males still have our nipples. Thus, evolution is NOT in operation at this time. And since evolution is supposedly a random occurance, why would it have stopped now? The conclusion, macro-evolution never happened. We were created by an intelligent designer - who incorporated a fiat creation with a micro-evolution to produce the vast array of species on the planet today.
But then again, since this makes logical sense, those who cannot think will continue to claim that there is "evidence" for evolution.
ed
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by jcarter on Wednesday, December 21 @ 13:45:26 PST
- by Ed on Wednesday, December 21 @ 15:29:18 PST
- by jcarter on Wednesday, December 21 @ 19:30:10 PST
The philosophical arguments (Score: 1)
by Parker on Tuesday, December 20 @ 21:21:40 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | It is utterly illogical to believe that our complex universe came from nothing and developed by pure accident. The thesis is absurd and requires a blind faith that few humans could ever muster.
Some atheists will say that their claim is equal to the creationist's position because creationists can't answer "Where God came from." But the two claims are not therefore equal. For if the options presented are that life came from nothing and by total accident -OR- that life came from a creator and by intelligent design, the latter is the only reasonable choice, even though both options cannot explain the origin of their first cause. And given that neither group can explain the origin of their first cause, the issue boils down to this: Is it more reasonable to believe that complex life came by pure accident or by intelligent design? The answer is obvious. All mentally sane people will concede that design is an infinitely more credible explanation.
The argument that complex life is the result of pure randomness is totally deficient and absurd. The claim is beyond reason and beyond man's faith capacities. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Virgil on Wednesday, December 21 @ 05:01:50 PST
- by Parker on Wednesday, December 21 @ 08:08:41 PST
- by Ed on Wednesday, December 21 @ 17:02:41 PST
- by Parker on Wednesday, December 21 @ 20:57:50 PST
Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum (Score: 1)
 by Windpressor (Giddi_one) on Thursday, December 22 @ 02:42:48 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | ***********
From the RTB site:
______________
Creation Scientists Applaud PA Judge's Ruling Against 'Intelligent Design'-Dressing Up ID Is No Substitute for Real Science
...
"Leading proponents of 'intelligent design' claim that judges and justices are motivated by an anti-Christian bias and a misguided application of the United States Constitution," says Dr. Hugh Ross, astronomer, founder and president of the science/faith organization, Reasons To Believe. "In the context of scientific credibility, these court judgments against 'intelligent design' cannot be construed as the audacious judicial moves many people make them out to be."
"As currently formulated, 'intelligent design' is not science," says internationally respected biochemist, Dr. Fazale 'Fuz' Rana. "It is not testable and does not make predictions about future scientific discoveries." Dr. Rana is the Vice President for Science Apologetics at Reasons To Believe and a leading expert in origin of life research.
"At Reasons To Believe, our team of scientists has developed a theory for creation that embraces the latest scientific advances. It is fully testable, falsifiable, and successfully predicts the current discoveries in origin of life research."
Complete article at:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/id_press_release_20051220.shtml
--------------------------
Apparently there are differing qualities to the various ID propositions.
............ |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Mick on Thursday, December 22 @ 09:34:23 PST
| 
|
