Comments on: Dover High School Administrators: Dimwits

By: Carpe Bonum

Carpe Bonum — Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:55:05 +0000

The fishie war hits the blogosphere
...don't be afraid of religious people questioning science. Use your best science to discuss it. Point out where the other person's argument diverges from good scientific method. Agree to disagree when it comes to matters of faith.

Keep science cl...

By: Vizzini

Vizzini — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 05:48:40 +0000

Inconceivable! That's what Joseph supposedly said when he heard Mary was pregnant. He repeated the line after he heard her theory about the immaculate conception.

And I thought the Scopes trial ended all this nonsense.

A true Zoroastrian knows that the earth was created in stages, with first the World of Thought, then the World of the Living, a counter creation by evil, then time was set in motion. I can't actually call that an intelligent design, so shouldn't that theory of life also be given equal ground? After all, it is the oldest and still widely practiced religion.

Thus spake Zarathustra!

By: Wizbang

Wizbang — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 04:30:44 +0000

The Ego of Man
I should start by saying that I mostly like all of James Joyner's new guest posters over at OTB And so far, I've liked Steve Verdon. I'm sure many people find him (like me) often a tad caustic, but I...

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:09:38 +0000

I am not sure what you are upset about. Welcome to Bush's America, where science is held in contempt and dogma is king. You supported the guy.

By: Say Anything

Say Anything — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:43:57 +0000

What Darwin's Theory Is Not
This statement at Outside The Beltway made me think of a good point:

Further, neither neo-Darwinian evolution or Intelligent design are theories on the origin of life. Neo-Darwinian evolution is a theory about the diveristy of life that we observe. ...

By: whatever

whatever — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:25:43 +0000

Okay, we get the fact you don't like it when stuff like this happens - the other dozen posts on this in the last month made it pretty clear.

By: Literally Retarded

Literally Retarded — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:28:52 +0000

Actually, ID is not a scientific theory at all. Since it (at least the version I am most familiar with) ascribes extra-natural causes to the effects that the current evolutionary theories can't explain, it cannot be tested, and results cannot be replicated. For the same reason, it doesn't lend itself to the scientific method, since anomolous results can be chalked up to the same extra-natural influence.

The true value of teaching ID in a science class is in explaining the nature of a scientific theory
and providing context for the development of well-know theories. Its weaknesses is the area of science are too glaring to ignore. ID assumes that we already know everything we can know scientifically, at least as far a evolution goes. That can't possibly be true.

That being said, I believe that our Creator wants us to test our minds - we need to push Knowledge forward. Consider the Theory of Relativity: most of it has been disproved, yet it remains an important step in the development of our understanding of the Universe. Was Einstein a heretic? Of course not. Will God condemn him for bing wrong? What a silly question.