Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design'

[MikeH]

Yes, that's the same theory. It has more scientific basis than ID because it was based on experimental evidence.

It was later proved to be incomplete, what really happened was animals would be attracted to, and reproduced in areas where food or the right habitat was available.

[Cyclotron]

ID is one of those things, like fly-generating dung, that was ok back in the days where we didn't kow any better. I don't laugh at the Greeks for thinking up crazy explanations for how the world works - but I hold moderns to a higher standard, even if we don't deserve it.

[MikeH]

I don't find anything unreasonable with saying "maybe god was responsible for the big bang" or something. That's what a lot of Christians believe...

but saying the world is only 6000 years old and evolution doesn't happen is like saying gravity doesn't exist and the sun goes round the earth.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DanS
So how would this disconnect be resolved over time in a society such as ours?

Nerve stapling the fundies.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS
I'm no fan of the DI, but fail to see why this is a judicial question. Over the long run, ID's place in our society will rise or fall based upon the merits of the arguments

No it won't. Otherwise it wouldn't be an issue at all.

[KrazyHorse]

I like how you assume that, despite all evidence to the contrary, the average person has the intelligence, knowledge and intellectual honesty to fairly evaluate scientific theories.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by MikeH
Yes, that's the same theory. It has more scientific basis than ID because it was based on experimental evidence.

It was later proved to be incomplete, what really happened was animals would be attracted to, and reproduced in areas where food or the right habitat was available.

Well Poof Theory would get around that by saying there was only 1 Poof and we don't know the certain conditions that generated that 1st Poof.

[Gangerolf]

Hehehe I just read about this ruling in the "quirky news" section of my newspaper.

[Arrian]

Heh, those quirky American fundies, eh?

-Arrian

[The diplomat]

ID is not creationism. Some religious people have tried to make it a religious theory by trying to say that the "intelligent designer" is this god or that god, but ID is not a religious theory. ID doe not identify who the "designer" is.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org.au/

[Gangerolf]

Arrian, yeah... it's a bit quirky.
well there's creationism in public school here too, but it's reserved for religion class, not science class.

[Dinner]

I guess you missed that the courts just said you were wrong. ID is creationism. Case closed!

[Pyrodrew]

"The Darwinian theory is not validated by science.

Just like my Poof Theory & ID? One day we'll have ID, evolution and Poof Theory all in science class. Submit your theory now while the enterance fees are low!

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by MikeH
There genuinely was an old theory that suggested that if you had the right conditions life would randomly appear. Eg. open grain sacks in a dark barn would 'react' to spontaneously create rats.

And don't forget barnacle geese from....

...barnacles.

Barnacle geese, as described by Gerald of Wales. They develop from beams in the water and hang from trees enclosed in shells until they can grow feathers and fly.

http://www.imagesonline.bl.uk/britishlibrary/controller/subjectidsearch?id=5557&&idx=1&startid=12843

[Gangerolf]

silly me, I always scrape them off

I love geese