Intelligent Design struck down in Federal Court

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Whether or not people believe in ID or not is not material.

They theory is the issue, not those who promote it.

Many atheists, one I quoted in this thread, favor teaching of ID.

Just because most Darwinists are atheistic, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be taught in schools any more than theist ID supporters should be a reason not to offer an alternative theory to Darwinism.

Quote from RobMc:

The point is that ID is just fraud insofar as it is sophistry wrapped up as science to hide a religious subversion of the 1st Amendment. It is backdoor and grubby and should be an embarrassment to any religious minded person.

By all means teach creation but in religious studies or whatever you have over there or churches and stand up and be counted. To try and pretend that there is a scientific theory but all the while trying deperately hard not to mention the G*d word or the C******n word is ridiculous.

Is it just a coincidence that all ID'ers believe in God? Or do they believe that the "intelligence" in ID is attributable to anyone/thing other than God? ................ hmmmmm, I didn't think so ..................

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Quote where I claimed "instantaneous creation." Design theory doesn't require anything instant, it just says that the universe and life within it is by design....not chance.

By design is that simple, by design rather than by chance....

Nowhere have I said evolution is a fraud. It is a theory that some people believe, others don't. There is plenty of controversy over Darwinism.

I am suggesting that we teach children both theories, that of chance, and that of design.

I could understand how you could get your knickers in a snit if I was suggesting the removal of Darwinism, but that is not what I am suggesting.

Your "kind" seem very much afraid of alternate theories.

Being fearful that children will not be able to think for themselves to reach their own conclusions....how pitiful and controlling....and how ultimately unscientific.

Have a little more faith in children that those who are seeking truth will find it, and those who are just looking to be indoctrinated will certainly find that too.

The story has two sides, two possibilities, so offer both sides, let them choose....do not subject them to either scientific atheistic or religious theistic dogmatism.

Quote from kjkent1:

The Big Bang theory has an enormous amount of supporting scientific physical observations, including background radiation and expansion measurments that help to solidify the theory. All of the tests generally support each other -- consequently OTHER competing theories of the universe (e.g., steady state theory), are falisified.

The corrollary is that, evolutionary is supported by scientific physical observations, including direct observation of mutational change that creates new functionality in an existing species, and demonstrations of physical reproductive isolation causing the isolated subgroups to no longer be capable of interbreeding.

Consequently, other competing theories of the development of life are falisfied.

ID proposes no natural mechanism by which its results may be obtained. It requires the application of supernatural force to fill gaps in the theory. Neither evolution, nor Big Bang theory requires such divine intervention.

What happened prior to the Big Bang is irrelevant to whether or not the physical universe is the product of the Big Bang. And, what happened prior to evolution is irrelevant to whether or not the biological universe is the product of evolution.

I have never said that God isn't absolutely possible. I only say that God is not measurable scientifically.

Cosmologists do not introduce God into the equation at any point AFTER the Big Bang occurred. The entire Big Bang concept, as a theory, stands or falls on the basis of scientific experimentation intended to verify or discredit the Big Bang.

Biologists do not introduce God into the equation at any point AFTER the moment that abiogenises occured. The entire evolutionary theory, stands or falls on the basis of scientific eperimentation intended to verify or discredit evolution.

BY CONTRAST, Intelligent design, INTRODUCES a SUPERNATURAL actor of unknown identity into the equation AFTER the moment that abiogenesis occured. And, the Federal Court found, that despite the ID proponent's claims to the opposite, that no ID theory seriously contends that a natural actor is influencing the course of the development life on Earth.

But, more importantly, I have no problem whatsoever with the idea that evolution may be the product of a designer. My problem is that the proponents of ID, as evidenced by you, Z, seek to replace evolution entirely, with a theory that life didn't develop over time, but rather that it sprung full force from nothing, and that it continues to do so, whenever the designer wishes it to occur.

That is the application of magic -- nothing less -- and it is ridiculous.

Now, if you want to change your position such that you want merely to tell public school biology students that when a random gamma ray strike mutates a gene in a DNA molecule, that the strike could actually be the product of the influence of God, then I have no problem with that, and I seriously doubt that any scientist would, either.

But, you have never ever suggested that position. Your position, at least the position that any reasonable person would read from your posts, is that evolution is a fraud and that life appears in a puff of smoke from the mind of an all powerful designer.

So, which is it, Z? Directed evolution or instantaneous creation?

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Quote where I claimed "instantaneous creation." Design theory doesn't require anything instant, it just says that the universe and life within it is by design....not chance.

By design is that simple, by design rather than by chance....

Where did you claim instantaneous creation? Right here:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=934054&highlight=pure+potentiality#post934054

(scroll down to the phrase "pure potentiality," highlighted in red)

Edit: You edited your post and added comments, so I'm editing mine now. Design theory absolutely requires instant creation. The foundational premise of ID is (1) irreducable complexity, i.e., instantaneous creation of a complete biological system in one step, and (2) specified complexity, i.e., biological evolution cannot have produced life without divine intervention, because the physical universe does not permit information gain by application of random chance.

Premise #1 above, demands the application of instantaneous creation, and #2, which is a purely mathematical construct, has been falisfied by computer simulation, so it is irrelevant to the continued argument in support of ID.

You seem to be having some difficulty answering the question, so I'll rephrase it for you:

What exactly is it that you want public school biology students exposed to -- the possibility that evolution may be directed by an outside force, or the instantaneous creation of life from the mind of God?

If it's the former, I seriously doubt that you will have any objection from any scientific source, INCLUDING Kenneth Miller, Ph.D, the author of the most widely used public school biology text(s). After, all, Dr. Miller is a Roman Catholic, and he has no problem with evolution being directed. He just has a problem with evolution being replaced by magic.

Now, are you going to answer the direct question, or not?

 

[jem]

The Catholic Position



What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.


The Time Question



Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.

Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence. "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159).

The contribution made by the physical sciences to examining these questions is stressed by the Catechism, which states, "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283).

It is outside the scope of this tract to look at the scientific evidence, but a few words need to be said about the interpretation of Genesis and its six days of creation. While there are many interpretations of these six days, they can be grouped into two basic methods of reading the account—a chronological reading and a topical reading.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

 

[RobMc]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Whether or not people believe in ID or not is not material.

They theory is the issue, not those who promote it.

Many atheists, one I quoted in this thread, favor teaching of ID.

Just because most Darwinists are atheistic, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be taught in schools any more than theist ID supporters should be a reason not to offer an alternative theory to Darwinism.

You bet I want to look at the motivation of those who promote an alternative view to schoolchildren in a way that is not straightforward or honest.

The motivation is simple - in the vast majority of cases it is so that a religious fundamental can be taught in schools.

Your post is a prime example of the sophistry I mentioned.

And I have to say that the line "Many atheists, one I quoted in this thread, favor teaching of ID." is laughable and is the sort of thing that ordinarily you would quite rightly shoot to pieces were it presented to you by one of the Bushites that normally oppose you on ET.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from jem:

The Catholic Position

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

Thanks jem. The fact that the Catholic Church apparently has no official position on whether or not life developed over time, confirms that a Roman Catholic is free to debate the question, without threat to his/her underlying beliefs.

And, if a biology curriculum wants to state as a matter of record, that the Roman Catholic church has no official position on the issue, I doubt that any scientist would be alarmed.

However, if a biology curriculum wants to state as a matter of record, that there is a competing scientific theory of the development of life known as intelligent design, and that theory is based upon the instantaneous transmutation of empty space into a living biological organism, by an omniscient creator, then I think that most scientists would have a very big problem with that argument, because it is entirely theological in nature.

 

[energytraderus]

Thanks to kjkent1 for corroborating my case: ID's constitutionality is open to debate.

Federal court is not the venue for this kind of case. School boards decide curriculum, and clearly most parents in this school district support this district's school board. The Constitution does not anywhere dictate that a minority opinion holder, in this case a Jew, gets to stop the majority from deciding the curriculum. If the Jew finds his idea of ID--whatever that may be--insulting, he can withdraw his child from the school. Many parents find public school curriculums insulting and school their kids at home.

The tens of hours of media coverage is sinister. Media corporation officers who decide content are overwhelmingly Jewish, and Jews have repeatedly attacked Fundamentalist Christians in the past. Clearly, Jews gain at the expense of Christians through both the federal judgement and the media coverage. As Jews in the media clearly decided to provulgate this particular federal court decision, and as Jews clearly gained thereby at the expense of Christians; any reasonable person must conclude that this all aspects of this court decision comprise an attack by Jews on Christians.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from energytraderus:

Thanks to kjkent1 for corroborating my case: ID's constitutionality is open to debate.

(clip)

I do not want to be associated with promoting your political agenda.

The judge in the Kitzmiller case was not of jewish descent or disposition. No one else made the decision that Intelligent Design is an unconstitutional violation of the establishment clause other than Federal Judge John Paul Jones III, and your statement that the decision is somehow a zionist conspiracy is completely unsupported by any facts on the record.

You are way over the line, and if your posts are picked up by someone directly involved in the case, you could be very easily and successfully sued for Libel, so I strongly suggest that you put a lid on it, unless you're interested in forking out a very large chunk of change to the object of your ridicule.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from energytraderus:

Media corporation officers who decide content are overwhelmingly Jewish, and Jews have repeatedly attacked Fundamentalist Christians in the past. Clearly, Jews gain at the expense of Christians through both the federal judgement and the media coverage. As Jews in the media clearly decided to provulgate this particular federal court decision, and as Jews clearly gained thereby at the expense of Christians; any reasonable person must conclude that this all aspects of this court decision comprise an attack by Jews on Christians.

Funny how these zealots always use the word 'reasonable' when describing their faith-based beliefs (in Z's case) or their sickening, wacked-out racist nonsense (in the case of this new slime that has crawled out to start barfing on this thread).

We can imagine energytrader finding this thread, and getting a little woodie. He wants to launch immediately into his racist diatribe, but at first he is able to control himself. Then he starts to get more excited, knowing that he won't be able to hold it in much longer... then finally he cracks (weak minded ass that he is, he's unable to hold it in for more than 24 hours), and spews it all up. One can imagine him sitting at home in his own filth, clicking refresh every 30 seconds, waiting to see if any of his mewling, puking brethren will arrive to pull their pants down.

Does anyone know if this idiot has already outed himself in any previous ET discussions?

 

[RobMc]

Give him sunnyskies number!