Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

yeh, a token gesture and a symbolic dope slap to the true believers and lets move on. However, as I see the Discovery Institute regrouping , weve not heard the last of these clowns.

If I was a Dover taxpayer I know who I would designate "clowns".I might even go so far as to class the plaintiffs with Fagin's team of juvenile pickpockets.

If I was a lawyer I'd be grinning all the way to the bank.And looking forward to a life of ease and comfort in all the places where busybody,concerned citizens could be found to start the circus going again.

It's like coal mining except the Dover citizens are the coal and working conditions are not only luxurious but get the diggers exposure in media.

What's the cost per household in Dover?The money has just been sucked out of Dover on a pretext of no significance.

Your whole argument fm is posited on a belief that what is taught in a biology lesson in a small town has important economic negative ramifications and you are as far from proving that as the fundamentalists are from proving the existence of God.

fm-It had slipped my mind but something reminded me just now.

Disinterest means not being influenced by personal interest which is a pure scientific ideal probably rare as most ideals are.

Dispassionate means free from the influence of passion.Apathy

One might be quite passionate about a line of scientific enquiry but pursue it without reference to personal interest or bias which is not an easy thing to do if money or prestige is at stake,particularly in large quantities.

Fowler doesn't even mention dispassionate.

I thought I would try to clarify the difference for you as confusing the two terms sometimes leads to smirkings in circles where it is understood.

Whether SDers on this thread have a passionate interest in the topic is not in doubt but I don't suppose we will ever know whether they are disinterested or not.If their passion spills over into self esteem or,perish the thought,self interest, they will then cease to be disinterested and,as such,discredit the scientific approach generally and will be in partisan football fan mode.

Anyone who is confused by the two terms will very likely find my contributions "stupid" and possibly even "creepy".I am profoundly disinterested in whether ID makes any sense or not but I would change my position if it could be proved it had a negative economic effect even in a slight degree.

When a school board attempts to mandate the teaching of ID in the United States, its action is unconstitutional. In Dover, the school board's unconstitutional action resulted in a negative economic effect. The cost to the taxpayers of Dover is at least one million dollars.

That's disgusting.Taxes are already far too high without taxpayers being charged extra for bursting a paper bag.

Gee-that's nearly $100 grand/ plaintiff.

Save a lot of money of they'd just realize one thing: it doesn't matter what you teach, the kids aren't paying attention.

I've been trying to tell them that for months pat.

spendi, inyour pastr post the use of dispassionate would have been better for a scientific reference because it has the meaning "to be without bias"

Your understanding of the Dover case is a bit naive and consequently , your pronouncements are without grounds. The schoolboard acted illegally and without community support. The schoolboard members most active in the ID ploy have possibly been involved in an illegal act including lying under oath, suborning perjury, and kiting funds, a)nd misrepresenting th)e public trust. We like to believe that we ultimately hold our local leaders to a high standard of performance. AND, there is no misdirecting attainment of state mandated performance standards for the kiddies. (Not to mention violations of the US constitution).

This case would have been brought anyway. Its too bad that the schoolboard was tossed out of office after the case went to court.
In the matter of whether some "meritocracy" should govern. Thats not our way, we elect our officials to serve us, not direct us. They should vote in our interest, they dont redirect it. They maintain local constituency offices so the people can hold them accountable by reminding them of their vote tally.
As far as Dover The plaintiffs were fully aware that the Defense's case may be unwinnable and the pyrrhic victory of the plaintiffs in court would be watered down by recognizing that they too would also be liable to pay the court costs since they were citizens of the school district. The plaintiffs offered all along to settle. The school board, under its past leadership (fraudulently representing itself as fiscal conservatives) pooh poohed the plaintiffs offer at settlement , taking it as a sign of weakness, when it was the defens's case that was in shambles all along.
Judge jones didnt so much dig in and connect with some judicial brilliance, He instead, criticized the defense for its dishonorable and possibly illegal means to gain their desired personal goal. The hell of it was that the schoolboard didnt even represent a majority of the people (although you know how I hate that science be decided by a popularity poll

fm wrote-



What understanding I have of the case is based on a knowledge of human nature rather than on the particular technical details of certain artificially created circumstances.This type of understanding may well be naive but had it been followed at the time of the Suez affair by our faithful allies I don't believe we would now be in all this **** and the twin towers would still be standing proudly on the Manhattan skyline.Whether our belief is a sound one is admittedly speculative but it is a scientific fact that we Edenites hold it.

BTW.Before 2001 a graphic on the cricket commentaries showing the runs scored per over was known as the Manhattan.That was dropped after those tragic days.

UTAH UPDATE

Teachers are not telling students that they evolved from Apes, because that's not what the theory says.

Humand didn't evolve from Apes. Apes and Humans evolved from a common ancestor. What's so complicate about that. You and your cousin both have a common ancestor; same thing, smaller time scale.

These Bills are an embarrasment to the people submitting them.

That the ID-iot crowd doesn't know what its talking about is well illustrated by their favortism for the absurd an unfounded "descended from apes" objection-set.

While the ID-iots attempt to create a controversy, often by objecting to something which is not there and/or by misrepresenting what is there, the overall preponderance of evidence leads to no logical conclusion but naturalistic evolution based on common ancestry, no available evidence contraindicates that conclusion, and the ID-iot crowd themselves have produced no evidence whatsoever supportive of their own absurd claims.

There is no controversy apart from the false impression of same the ID-iots attempt to foist on the public. There is no question of ID-iocy meriting classification as "Science"; it is whole-cloth fairytail, with absolutely no prospect ever of achieving legal recognition as science - the requisite conditions simply do not exist. The harder the ID-iots push, the more damage they do themselves and their cause. The progression of events inevitably will see them and their cause demoted from nuisance to laughingstock. More power to them, and godspeed.

fm wrote-



That sounds peculiar.

That suggests the legal facts took second place to the presentation of the defence or even that they were not even considered.Could "dishonorable" run into modes of dress or haircuts."Possibly illegal"-what does that refer to?

Jones found not only was there no validity to ID-iocy's claim to standing as science, but also that the defendants' actions and behavior clearly were were contrary to law in some instances, and likely contrary to law in other instances.

The Titanic sank due to a coincidence of factors. The ship's construction was inadequate both in execution and materials, the command staff disregarded standing prescribed proceedures, and an iceberg happened to cross the ship's path at an inoportune moment. The ID-iots constructed their ark, set it to sea, plotted its course, and charged ahead into known dangerous waters. JJudge Jones was their iceberg, Dover their inopportune moment (and one they chose for themselves).

ros wrote-



So what did we evolve from?Not that I'm bothered myself but it seems some people are.

Was it the "missing link"?And was the missing link more advanced than the contemporary ape which has presumably then been a singular case of the survival of the unfittest.

Whatever one might say about the validity of the Creation story it is certainly a nicer explanation of our evolution having at its centrepiece the fig leaf.
This is particularly the case in a nation which finds an ordinary tit at the Superbowl such a challenge to its sense of decorum.

If SDers are going to go all out for the scientific truth warts and all I suspect they might be in for some stuff they will find just as objectionable as conservatives find the idea of us being clever monkeys.

spendi Doesnt say that at all. The judge had plenty oflegal issues to deal with. The defense was lousy and as the case findng showed, the judge presented a remonstrance to the defense that bordered on a verbal rebuke (for being so dumb and taking up the courts time. Even though the defense didnt bring the case, they were the reason for the case to be brought. Hence the judge was mostly po'd at them for being so underhanded , dumb in their methods, and manipulative of their constituency.
Whats so hard to understand? Your just dead set against the trial basis that you fail to recognize its merits.

"the quotes of dishonorable had to do with being less than honorable, ie "underhanded" in their methods of stacking the vote for ID,
"possibly illegal" I think Ive said it only 3 times so maybe if I go slowly

The judge criticized the defense for "possibly" suborning perjury, and "possibly' lying under oath. He also recognized that they got themselves elected under false pretenses.

. (In the US we assume everyone is innocent until proven guilty) They are now only deciding whether criminal charges should be brought against the 2 members of the school board who hijacked it on behalf of the ID in science class issue. Simple no?

timber wrote-



Dover was a pinprick.Hardly even the tip of the iceberg.The judgement seems to me to be one for the legal profession.The heavy hitters are still in the wings.

Don't you know timber that bored,well off and attention seeking people will look for controvesy like oil companies look for oil.And lawyers will encourage them even unto the uttermost ends of time.

fm wrote-



Are you kidding.Nothing is simple when concerted human action gets underway.

Your last post is chock full of evasive word formulations.It gives an impression which the meaning doesn't justify.

The 3rd sentence is a complete tautology.The judge is right because he's the judge.The case finding would find what the judge found.

It's really too confused to deal with.

What was the official side doing when the elected board did what they did.Shouldn't they have stopped anything "illegal"?

For one who revealed to us that he hadnt even read Jones decision, you sure have alot of "theatrical reviews" of what was said , or what he meant.

As far as these heavy hitters, Im unaware of where these people are now hiding. Even our opportunistically malleable US Senator Santorum has once again moved his position away from ID because he sees that hes not in a popular movement to most of the state.

spendi

What official side? do you have any idea what youre talking about?