Intelligent Design Group Accuses PBS of Promoting Unconstitutional Teaching

By Katherine T. Phan|Christian Post Reporter

E-mail
Print
RSS
digg Facebook Twitter Stumble Reddit del.ico.us Buzz Share
Text

A leading intelligent design think tank says a teacher's guide issued by the Public Broadcasting System in conjunction with a program on the 2005 Dover intelligent design trial is “likely unconstitutional.”

PBS had issued the "Briefing Packet for Educators" for the two-hour NOVA program, called "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial," scheduled to premiere Tuesday at 8 p.m.

Experts at the Discovery Institute say the guide promotes teaching practices that unconstitutionally injects religion into the classroom.

"They are encouraging teachers to do things like have discussion questions such as – 'Can you accept evolution and still believe in religion? Answer: Yes. The common view that evolution is inherently anti-religious is simply false,'" spokesman Rob Crowther said, according to OneNewsNow.

Critics of intelligent design have often criticized the teaching as a ploy to introduce religion into schools. They charge intelligent design with touting the same beliefs as Creationism – the biblically-based belief that God created the universe.

However, proponents of intelligent design contend that while evidence from nature and the natural world suggests an “intelligent designer” is behind the creation in the universe, there is not enough scientific evidence to identify the designer as God.

“Far be it from us to accuse PBS of kind of being agenda-driven, or having an anti-intelligent design bend, but it is interesting that this is the tact they've taken and now there they are injecting religion right into the classroom,” Crowther added.

Furthermore, the guide does not provide an accurate portrayal of intelligent design, according to Dr. John West, vice president for public policy and legal affairs with Discovery Institute.

"The teaching guide is riddled with factual errors that misrepresent both the standard definition of intelligent design and the beliefs of those scientists and scholars who support the theory," said West in a report by the Republican Valley.

The Discovery Institute has sent copies of the teacher's guide to 15 attorneys and legal scholars, who specialize in constitutional law, for review, said Crowther.

Crowther wrote on his blog Friday that the group will also be watching the program and posting corrections to any pieces of information that they find misleading.

Tuesday’s program will follow the federal case of Kitzmiller v. Dover School District and feature trial reenactments based on court transcripts and interviews with key participants, according to PBS.

Next Story : Survey: High School Seniors 'Graduating from God'

Most Popular

Viewed
Commented
Blogged

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.

1 | 2

rhbsc »

Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:10 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

BobC ---- Knowing what you got together, splain me this----------Thriving intelligently is striving (for) intelligence < that's you right> or/and continual growth pattern adjustment <evolving you evolving> thus being an (and/or of) intelligent design...... you yourself designing intelligently.... somewhat... just a lay person opining..objective view... sort of ... what ya think.
bondmen »

Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:30 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

An erudite, detailed review of Judgment Day written by a scientist, titled "Judgment Day: Will it Be the New Inherit the Wind?" can be found at http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200711.htm under the date 11-14-07. The myriad of serious problems with Paul Allen's media savvy evolution puff piece are detailed here with over 38 links to related articles and further analysis of important points.
schumacr »

Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:13 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

<<Anyway, you're welcome, and thanks for looking at it.>>

No problem, I haven't finished yet but there's some hard data that needs to be acknowledged and explained for sure. As I've said, if evolution is true, then I need to be an evolutionist. I think you'd agree with me that ideas have consequences and believing lies/bad ideas can lead to bad consequences, so it's important we stay on the side of truth, and that's what I want to do.

What I can't wrap my brain around isn't so much evolution as it is a first cause. If science is a search for causes, then I believe we have to ask what caused the universe. Science and logic also must admit you can't have an infinite regress of causes so you must arrive, at some point, to the first cause, an unmoved mover (to quote Aristotle) whatever that is that kicked everything off. I know you've said you don't think that the answer to this matters, but IMO it's very important. Carl Sagan simply said "The universe is just...there.", but I don't think that satisfies the question.

Anyway, you've got some good stuff in your link. I added a new post to my university's forum that contained your link and asked others to chime in with insight - it'll be interesting to see what I get back.

Thanks again.
BobC »

Sun Nov 18, 2007 3:24 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Since Kevin Padian loves evolution even more than I do, that's not the reaction I expected. Anyway, you're welcome, and thanks for looking at it.
schumacr »

Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:37 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

BobC:

<<The flat-earthers here should look at this.
http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/Padian_transcript.html>>

Thanks for posting this. I've only gotten about 1/3 through it, but there's some very good points and information here. I would recommend all on this thread reading through it.

Thanks again, Bob, for posting this.
BobC »

Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:44 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

The two-hour NOVA program, called "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial", can be watched on the internet here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
BobC »

Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:08 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

The flat-earthers here should look at this.

http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/Padian_transcript.html
BobC »

Sat Nov 17, 2007 1:39 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

Topekan: "evolutionary religious dogma"

Those 3 words are proof you know absolutely nothing about evolution, and it also proves you know absolutely nothing about the scientific method. I suggest you educate yourself. Read books written by real scientists instead of getting all of your information from liars for jesus. If you knew anything about science at all you would not use the words religious and dogma when talking about science.

It's not just me who has zero respect for you flat-earthers. Every biologist in the world is disgusted by the ignorance of the American christians.
BobC »

Sat Nov 17, 2007 1:22 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

For some strange reason, schumacr said: "You need first to provide rock-solid evidence of an eternal universe and matter before you can even start talking about evolution."

What does biological evolution here on earth have to do with the beginning of the universe? The Big Bang was more than 13 billion years ago and our solar system did not form until several billion years later, about 5 billion years ago. It wasn't until about 4 billion years ago that life began on earth. There must be life to evolve from before evolution can get started. That's so basic any grammar school student knows it.

You need to understand, schumacr, despite what the liars who work for the discovery institute and other christian organizations say, there is absolutely no debate in the scientific community about whether or not evolution is a fact. For more than a century, all competent biologists have agreed all life evolved and now the evidence is so massive it would be crazy to deny it. The only people who deny evolution are the non-scientists who believe everything is supernatural magic. All scientists and all normal non-scientists completely accept evolution as fact. If you deny it you're just wasting your time. You might as well think the earth is flat if you're going to deny all life evolved. The question is, do you want to admit you have been wrong all your life, or do you want to waste the rest of your life believing in the idiocy of magical creation?
BobC »

Sat Nov 17, 2007 1:20 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

Topekan said: BobC: Kansas didn't "deny evolution", despite your chest beating to the contrary. The state board of education merely wanted to include teaching of the disagreements within the scientific community with the basic tenets of evolutionary "theory". Get your facts straight, and don't just quote your evolutionary religious dogma.

I know the entire recent history of that backward state. I said earlier the population of Kansas is mostly evolution deniers and I was correct and everyone knows I was correct. Talk to anyone in Kansas and it's likely you will find out he's a flat-earther just like you are. Despite the backwardness of Kansas citizens, the current board of education in Kansas is pro-evolution because the voters who accept evolution made sure the creationists got kicked out. Your "The state board of education merely wanted to include teaching of the disagreements within the scientific community with the basic tenets of evolutionary theory" was from the previous school board and it can be translated to mean they wanted to force science teachers to lie to their students. Biologists of course have minor differences about the minor details about evolution and this leads to progress as new evidence explains how each species evolved. Biologists do NOT disagree about evolution being a proven fact. The creationists wanted to force science teachers to lie about this, and that's why Kansas was a national joke. Fortunately right now there is a sane pro-evolution school board in Kansas and hopefully it will stay that way. Unfortunately there is no guarantee the school board will again be infested with creationist hicks.

By the way, I would bet you don't even know what a scientific theory is. You're probably too lazy to look it up so I will give you the dictionary definition here.

theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of FACTS or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Evolution has been tested repeatedly for more than a century and it's still accepted as a fact. I suggest you learn to accept it unless you want to be laughed at the rest of your life.

If it sounds to you like I have zero respect for flat-earthers you are correct. It's been more than a century since Darwin and since then the evidence for evolution has been growing every day, and it's now growing more rapidly than ever before. The genetic evidence creationists don't understand but lie about anyway is extremely powerful. That's why it's impossible to find a sane biologist who denies it. Anyone who still denies evolution deserves zero respect and he should be ashamed of himself.
schumacr »

Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:46 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

fallenman -

<<in my opinion we are the mundane folk talking about a science that only bioligists have a claim to say nay or yay to.>>

I understand your point, however we need to be careful as this stance can turn into a logical fallacy (appeal to authority - i.e. you don't need to be an authority to make a truthful statement). You don't need a biology degree to reach a conclusion on the validity of macroevolution.

<<You find one scholar who denies evolution and all of a sudden we throw evolution out the window, but what about the people who rebuttle this one scholars denial of evolution?>>

I'm not sure if you're referring to my statements on Crick, but if so...Crick IS an evolutionist.

In any event, before we talk about evolution vs. design, you first have to answer the larger question: Why do we have 'something' vs. nothing at all? This was the philosopher Sartre's question and it is what needs answering first. You need first to provide rock-solid evidence of an eternal universe and matter before you can even start talking about evolution. And everything in science points to the universe having a beginning, and if it has a beginning then it has a cause. In other words, it isn't eternal.

And if the universe isn't eternal you only have one other choice for eternal existence.
Fallenman »

Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:26 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

:P in my opinion we are the mundane folk talking about a science that only bioligists have a claim to say nay or yay to. You find one scholar who denies evolution and all of a sudden we throw evolution out the window, but what about the people who rebuttle this one scholars denial of evolution? Why not listen to him as well?
schumacr »

Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:02 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Zeno -

Agreed. BobC recommended the book "The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution" to me, which I'm looking at now, but the book I'd really like to read from the atheist side isn't out: "The Arrival of the Fittest: How all that We Know Came from Nothing."

One of my other favorite quotes from Crick is: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."
zenodaddy »

Fri Nov 16, 2007 7:31 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

‘publicly stated that after examining DNA and reaching the conclusion that it is indeed a language’

I love how people claim that God does not exist, then in turn they spend billions searching for aliens via SETI and ignore the fact that we are all made up of 4-bit computer code, a la DNA. We search high and low and yet when it is found here on earth, they claim it was by happenstance and blind chance. This is much like building a computer without an operating system and waiting for it to create one on its own. Before that could happen though the computer would have to figure out how to turn itself on and then recognize all of the components within itself to come ‘alive’ and which it would then have to program itself.

‘, the only way life could have arisen on earth was for it to be planted here by extraterrestrials.’

Interesting that people claim that other life may exist and may have started it here, but it still does not resolve the question of how did they get here from there or who created them? DNA is a prime example of intelligent design, any other theory is nothing but biased ignorance in the face of reason.
schumacr »

Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:42 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

<<this way, American science will be filled with theories that they were seeded by colonising spaceships from the Sirius star-system>>

You might want to check out some evolutionary history and heroes before you make that statement. Francis Crick (an evolutionist), co-discoverer of DNA, publicly stated that after examining DNA and reaching the conclusion that it is indeed a language, the only way life could have arisen on earth was for it to be planted here by extraterrestrials. So I'm afraid the 'little green men' argument is on your side, not on the side of those who acknowledge the truth about the Creator.
Topekan »

Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:28 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

BobC: Kansas didn't "deny evolution", despite your chest beating to the contrary. The state board of education merely wanted to include teaching of the disagreements within the scientific community with the basic tenets of evolutionary "theory". Get your facts straight, and don't just quote your evolutionary religious dogma.
The Well Hungarian »

Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:07 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 3

We in Hungary are more than happy for American children to learn nothing of evolution, and all about intelligent design. As added bonus, it will not be long before other weirdo's with unscientific theories take advantage of American poplitical correctness and insist on teaching pseudo-science. This way, American science will be filled with theories that they were seeded by colonising spaceships from the Sirius star-system, that the world is being dragged across the sky on the back of a giant turtle, and all that stuff from the Matrix films.

Then, Europe will once again win all nobel prizes, and watch while America turns into Planet of the Apes!
BobC »

Thu Nov 15, 2007 6:43 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

Topekan: "The only difference is that the scientific establishment has required a priori that no supernatural processes are allowed. That is not science, it is biased religious dogma."

Topekan: "I got my science degree from the University of Kansas (chemistry)."

The state of Kansas is well known for their denial of evolution.

If you tried to get a science degree for biology you would never have graduated if you denied evolution. Nothing in biology make sense except in the light of evolution (Theodosius Dobzhansky 1900-1975).

Any scientist who said "The only difference is that the scientific establishment has required a priori that no supernatural processes are allowed. That is not science, it is biased religious dogma." would be a disgrace to his profession. You should ask for your money back if they never bothered to explain to you why Mr. God is a science stopper. No problem was ever solved by invoking God. Did you invoke God in your chemistry classes? If you did, you would have been thrown out the window.

Also, if any scientist, even if he wasn't a biologist, said "Evolution is not a theory, at best it is an untested hypothesis" then he would be a disgrace to his profession.

What is it about Christianity that makes even people educated in science deny simple scientific facts like evolution? I'm convinced Christianity is a terrible disease, and unfortunately in most cases there's no cure for it. A Christian's brain is permanently destroyed and there's nothing that can be done for him.
Fallenman »

Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:19 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Im inclined to agree... the evidence for evolution is overwhelming... if you do not think so, im inclined to believe you got a biased education in the matter... theres no need for insults. I suggest you give evolution another look over from a different perspective maybe? Or maybe try to find the arguements against the arguements you've presented... to see if anyone has tried or successfully refuted your beliefs? I can totally understand if you dont want to, but I encourage it.. best to know both sides of the arguement in full...
Topekan »

Thu Nov 15, 2007 6:57 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

ifeelfine72-- I got my science degree from the University of Kansas (chemistry). Clearly you don't know a thing about science, or perhaps you need to extract your head from the dark recesses of your lower GI tract.
ifeelfine72 »

Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:13 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Topekan - Where did you get your science degree? Clearly you don't know a thing about evolution. The evidence is overwhelming, pull your head out of the sand and look it up.
BobC »

Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:08 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Topekan, you have a lot of misconceptions about evolution and you have a misconception about science. It's not likely you will listen to anything I say, so why don't you listen to the PBS Nova TV program this thread is about. If you missed it on TV Tuesday night, you can still see it on the internet beginning on Friday 11/16/2007.

Come back November 16 to watch the entire program online here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

I recommend to everyone to see it. It was very educational. I've been studying evolution for many years and I still learned a lot watching the scientists at this trial explain some of the massive genetic and fossil evidence for evolution. Ken Miller talked about the DNA evidence, and Neil Shubin talked about the Tiktaalik fossil he discovered. It was interesting when they explained scientists can make predictions about what must be in DNA or else evolution is false, and they can even predict what kinds of fossils can be found at what locations. The discovery of the Tiktaalik fossil was extremely impressive. They predicted they would find the fossil they were looking for in Canada near the North Pole and they found exactly what they were looking for at the location they predicted it would be found. I was amazed. I was also amazed at how powerful the genetic evidence is, and Ken Miller did an excellent job of explaining it.
BobC »

Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:39 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"I still believe Christianity and evolution can co-exist peacefully - one doesn't disprove the other."

OK. I will agree with that. Evolution doesn't say anything about any religion. It just happens to confllict with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Ken Miller found a way to accept both evolution and Christianity. Ken Miller has probably done more to promote the teaching of evolution than anyone else, so if he claims a Christian can accept evolution and still be a Christian then I have to agree with him.

However, I will point out the obvious fact that if there were no religious people there would be no flat-earthers who deny evolution. I am almost certain there are no atheists who deny all life evolved. The only known alternative, supernatural magic, is not something an atheist is likely to accept.
Topekan »

Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:48 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

You are all wrong. Evollution is not a theory, at best it is an untested hypothesis. There is simply no way to test speciation, spontaneous generation of life in the primordial ooze, and so on. The scientific method cannot be used to prove either evolution or intelligent design. The only difference is that the scientific establishment has required a priori that no supernatural processes are allowed. That is not science, it is biased religious dogma.
ifeelfine72 »

Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:59 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

BobC - fair enough, I stand corrected! . . . I still believe Christianity and evolution can co-exist peacefully - one doesn't disprove the other.
BobC »

Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:30 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"By the way BobC, we aren't part of the ape species, we are part of the ape family. Get your science straight."

I didn't say we are "part" of an ape species. I said we are an ape species.
ifeelfine72 »

Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:52 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Is there any Christian posting here who believes evolution does anything to dispell their faith? Is there any Christian here who feels that this "debate" is bringing anyone to the faith? Then why even talk about this at all? In fact, I would wager that if anything, it is pushing people away from the faith. They don't see the greatness of it, all they see is a bunch of hicks that should platitudes "Evolution is just a theory," "My grandpa wasn't a monkey," etc. Stupidity.

There is no debate, evolution is science and intelligent design is faith - and to suggest otherwise is insulting to all of us. Stop pitting it is as evolution = atheism, intelligent design = Christian faith, it makes us all look bad. Evolution and Christian faith are completely compatible - enough with the nonsense.

By the way BobC, we aren't part of the ape species, we are part of the ape family. Get your science straight.
Fallenman »

Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:46 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Actually we didnt come from apes either ^^. What happened was it was like a tree, there was a single point which we'll call point A, it branched off into two different points (in actuality many different points but for simplicity just two) B and C, we became B and the apes C. We learned to adapt to our environment in a different way, while the Apes learned to adapt to the jungle.. They had everything they needed to survive, they didnt need to evolve further.. while we took it a bit further... People say but what about all the gaps? Well when we find fossils they fill in gaps.. then you say but what about all the other gaps.. well arnt you being a little picky? we find evidence then you claim its not enough evidence, we find more evidence.. and still its not enough? When will it be enough? We obviously cant find all the fossils in the world... Every time we find a fossil it normally points towards evolution, evidence is on the side of evolution guys... thats the simple fact of the matter..
BobC »

Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:26 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

The flat-earthers here who deny humans are an ape species disgust me. They are just plain stupid and they deserve to be laughed at. If they weren't lazy they would have watched Nova TV program last night. If they did watch it, and if they had a half a brain, they would have been convinced by the powerful evidence they saw. But creationists can't understand anything because they just don't have any brains. The creationists deserve nothing but constant ridicule. They are just gullible little children who are too cowardly to grow up and face facts.
normalflora »

Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:25 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"You haven't found actual proof of a man evolving from an ape"

What about in the show the detail about our chromosome #2 having been fused from two other chromosomes? The finding of large genetic sequences consistent with a telomere in the center of the chromosme, and of two centromeres? (instead of one in the center) This demonstrates and explains why other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes and we only have 23 pair. I found that fascinating and compelling proof. What other "proof" would you like to see? (I'm serious... That's not a rhetorical question)

It's never made sense to me why it isn't acceptable that evolution IS God's mechanism of creation? Isn't God a physicist? Cell biologist? Chemist? And more? Grasping the beauty and complexity of the natrual world is humbling and DEEPLY spiritually moving.

Who are we to limit God by insisting that everything was placed here all at once, just as it is? God created an ever changing world, and beings able to change with it. What a creative creator! And the mechanism is evolution. What is the problem with that?... except that it contains apparent conflicts with The Book.

Man created the Bible, God created the world. I know which I trust.

Lastly: Be honest: Who can look at a chimp and NOT recognize ourselves? Come on. It's impossible NOT to recognize how much we are alike. My mother-in-law even looks like her DOG! (I say that lovingly...she does. As do many other folks!) Saying we are NOT related to other apes is more fantastical than saying we came from them (or from a common ancestor, as it were.)

Why the division and the rift? What did Jesus say? LOVE ONE ANOTHER.

In peace.
normalflora »

Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:08 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

post
zenodaddy »

Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:43 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

'Evolution HAS and STILL IS being proven in the lab and in nature. '

No it has not, what fairy tale book are you reading from.

'If my kid doesn't want to eat his broccoli, I add cheese to get him to eat it. And after that, He starts eating broccoli on a regular basis without cheese. He evolved.'

He has not evolved. Good Lord man! Come on. Just because he likes broccoli without cheese means nothing other then the fact that he likes broccoli. Now, if he ate broccoli and wings sprouted from his butt, then we could talk.

holito8,

It is hard to see where you are coming from. In one sentence you are defending evolution, in the next you are stating that it is only a theory and cannot be proven... which is it my friend?

Micro-Evolution does occur.... no doubt, we all adapt to our surroundings. However, the ridiculous idea that we have evolved over time from a monkey like species is a joke. Why are there still monkeys if in fact we evolved from them? Did the monkey's just get the short end of the stick?

Just because a rock looks like a pig, does not mean the pig evolved from the rock.
holito8 »

Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:59 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

Evolution HAS and STILL IS being proven in the lab and in nature.
Ok. If my kid doesn't want to eat his broccoli, I add cheese to get him to eat it. And after that, He starts eating broccoli on a regular basis without cheese. He evolved.
Just because something adapts doesn’t mean it transformed into something different. It still what it is. Find did in the Bible if you will where God said His people would not adapt to their environment.
You haven't found actual proof of a man evolving from an ape. It only a theory, no matter how good it sounds. Unless your lab studies have done the impossible, science has not proven anything.
BobC »

Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:42 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 1

After the Dover trial the judge received death threats from Christians. During the Dover trial one of the parents who requested help from the ACLU received a death threat in the mail from a Christian.
BobC »

Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:15 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

The Christians on that Dover school board were extremely dishonest at the trial.

From a news article I just read:

Jones seemed particularly annoyed by the Dover school board members, who denied under oath that the approval of intelligent design was based on religious conviction, despite the testimony of several witnesses who said board members made overtly religious comments during their deliberations. “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy,” Jones wrote.
BobC »

Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:08 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"the two-hour NOVA program, called "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial," scheduled to premiere Tuesday at 8 p.m."

I just watched it. It showed the Judge becoming angry at the Christians who committed perjury at that trial. It was obvious from the evidence presented these Christians were lying to cover up the fact they were trying to force science teachers to teach religion instead of science. They were also trying to force science teachers to lie about evolution to their students. The Judge said "The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."
Fallenman »

Tue Nov 13, 2007 3:44 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 2

A common misconception about evolution is that people equate it to the explanation of the origon of life... when in actuality, evolution has nothing to do with that... People think evoltuion says we randomly came about, nonliving matter became living matter, thats actually a study of abiogenesis, something Darwin never even touched on. Two different things entirely. Evolution is NOT random, the only RANDOM thing about evolution is mutation... Evolution HAS and STILL IS being proven in the lab and in nature. It IS observable, and it IS explainable... what is questionable is abiogenesis, and thats ok, the point of science is to figure it all out.. abiogenesis is one of the theories, and its actually not too bad for a theory.. But evolution is something that has been proven.
BobC »

Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:42 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 2

holito8: "it all happened by chance." Certainly chance has a lot to do with who survives and who doesn't survive long enough to pass on its genes to the next generation. But in general, the animal most likely to live long enough to reproduce has what it takes to live that long. Natural Selection is NOT random.

holito8: "Because if apes were our equal, they would not be dying out. They would evolve into us."

The common ancestors we share with the other ape species, did evolve to become modern ape species, including human apes and the other ape species living today. The chimps are already perfect for their environment. The human species, who are the distant cousins of the chimps, are already perfect for their much different environment. Neither species would last very long in the other's environment.

"they would not be dying out." You know why the other ape species are threatened with extinction? It's because the human ape species has been destroying their environment and killing them. The evolution of the human species was the worst thing that ever happened to this planet. There's almost 7 billion of us now, with more billions on the way. Already we have completely trashed our oceans, lakes, rivers, and forests. You know who most wants to do something about this destruction of our planet? It's the same biologists who accept the massive evidence all life is related. Knowing we are part of nature, and not separate from nature, helps people understand why they must take care of this planet instead of destroying it.
holito8 »

Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:25 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

BobC, hold to your scientist because they would never lie to you or be proven wrong.
God did not says education was wrong. He did not say man would or could not learn about his environment. God created and promotes education. Moses studies in Egypt. God people had industry constantly improving art and design...remember Solomon temple. God gave Adam dominion over the earth. We still exert that same dominion today. We trive above all other animals... even the apes. Because if apes were our equal, they would not be dying out. They would evolve into us. Anway, man has studies the stars and not really proven anything. Man has studied machines and not proven anything. Man has studies himself and still we are a mystery. But man can do one thing based on scientist. They can disprove the existance of God. God a being beyond the stars, the earth and man. Now if I were a betting man, and I'm not, those odds of that being true are astronomical. You come up with theories for everything else. You see the order and complexity in the universe. But you come up with the theory it all happened by chance.
BobC »

Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:55 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

holito8, every biologist knows humans are an ape species. This fact is in any encyclopedia.

holito8, There a big difference between the intentional lying by the Disco Institute thugs, and when new evidence disproves an old hypothesis.

You need to understand that scientists are learning more about evolution every day, and every year they know more than they did before about how each species evolved. None of these new discoveries has made any scientist doubt evolution is a fact. Their rapidly growing knowledge about evolution has always just made evolution stronger. The minor details change all the time. This is called "progress". But the fact of evolution, the fact that all life evolved, the fact the humans developed from other animals, these will always be facts. The evidence is just too strong to think evolution will ever be disproven. It's no exaggeration to say the evidence for evolution is even stronger than the evidence the earth orbits the sun. Nobody would claim our earth's orbit will ever be disproven. We might learn more about that orbit, but nobody is ever going to disprove it. It's the same for evolution.

Meanwhile the Discovery Institute thugs, and other professional liars for Jesus, never discovery anything. All they do is lie constantly about the hard work of real scientists. Their behavior is disgusting and immoral, and the flat-earthers here are their victims. You people really should thank me for warning you about the Discovery Institute liars, unless you want to be lied to because you like your fantasy world too much to give it up.
holito8 »

Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:49 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Humans are apes. I repeat. People are apes. We are an ape species. I'm an ape. You're an ape. Jesus was an ape. We share a common ancestor with the other ape species. This has most definitely been proven beyond any doubt.

Do you understand species corelations? It doesn't make apes -humans. All animals have relation. The higher life form have more relations than the lower but that doesn't make them the same.
holito8 »

Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:41 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

You just want to waste my time. Hmmm. You are wasting our time. We are not forcing you to be here. You came on your own time. You must be lying. Anyway, I studied experimental genetics. But I still believe the Bible.
holito8 »

Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:39 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Anyway the Bible is off-topic for this thread. The topic of this thread is the liars who work for the Discovery Institute, not the liars who wrote the Bible.

If someone proves that what one scientist said was not true, Is he a liar? So if scientist are constantly changing their theories are they "not lying" or "wait doing research." What did Nixon said something about what he said being later found not true. So if you are following scientists that are changing what they said before are you believing liars?
If I believe that I see and what cannot be disproved, am I following liars?
BobC »

Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:35 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

schumacr: "Why is that?" I already told you. It's a waste of time to try to explain anything to a creationist. It's hard work and it's always for nothing. How hard is it for you to educate yourself? You don't want to learn anything. You just want to waste my time.

schumacr: "Darwinian theory" Only creationists call it that, which is more evidence it would be a waste of time to explain anything to you. It's called "evolution". How hard is it to say that?

schumacr: "Apes have not change to humans that has not been proven."

Humans are apes. I repeat. People are apes. We are an ape species. I'm an ape. You're an ape. Jesus was an ape. We share a common ancestor with the other ape species. This has most definitely been proven beyond any doubt.

I suggest, instead of wasting my time, read the book I recommended earlier. To get started you and the other flat-earthers here could read the very educational readers' comments on amazon.com. For your convenience here's the name of the book again, it was published in 2006, not many centuries ago like your fictional Bible.

The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution By Sean B. Carroll
holito8 »

Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:12 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

The writers of the Bible knew nothing about science, yet they made scientific claims in Genesis which every educated sane person knows is pure garbage. Anyone who believes anything in Genesis deserves to be laughed at.

Anyone who believes in fortune teller should be consider mentally handicap. Fortune teller predict things all the time. Theories are predictions, so scientists are fortune tellers too by relation. Fortune teller are wrong many time. Scientist are wrong also that why theories are always being redefined. But things God have said have not passed away. His word continues forth even now.
holito8 »

Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:06 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Bobc
ask any biologist if you don't believe me.
Biologist are not always correct. You are basing your entire "hope" on theories for the scientific community. You are talking about minute changes in DNA. You are talking about things becoming resistance to drugs as claim of evolution. If I put on a pair of jeans to day and a suit tomorrow, I've evolved. Let's take a more broader scope.
Why are species becoming extinct? There are species that have been around for centuries that are no longer here. There are some that people are trying to save. Why? They are not evolving to the changing conditions of their environment.
You commented on Genesis. God created man and the animal from the same earth. When any living thing dies, it returns to the earth that can be proven. Man does not have apes, no one has found this happening. Apes have not change to humans that has not been proven. A theory is a prediction or predictor. A predictor is not fact. God put His bow in the clouds. Its has been seen. All things produce after their kind, fact.
If we came from chaos then we would still see this chaos. The universe is not that old based on scientist. But all things work together as God said in His word, the Bible. You can call it what you will but science has not disprove it. You should research the word theory more.
schumacr »

Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:05 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

BobC - If my comments/questions are so boring, then you should have the answers close at hand, and yet, you provide none. Why is that? I have indeed educated myself on these matters as I was brought up completely in the Darwinian theory through school. And yet, when I began to dig into things, that's when I realized Darwin was wrong and inconsistent. For example, I wondered why Darwin himself in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species pointed out that his whole argument begins with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. How did that happen if everything evolves? What's your answer or is this another 'boring' argument?

I do not mean to be offensive, but have you really thought out these things? You call me a fool, well I'm sorry, I just don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist.
BobC »

Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:49 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

schumacr, a dishonest scientist is a disgrace to his profession. I would dislike a dishonest scientist even more than I dislike dishonest non-scientists.

You asked "where does that morality come from?" It comes from my simple common sense. Even a child can figure out lying is bad. Apparently you have not been able to figure that out, because I noticed you continue to deny what you call macroevolution. You should reread my comments and read the book I recommended. All your comments I have heard before countless times from creationists like you. Your comments are boring. Why don't you educate yourself instead of making a fool out of yourself? Seriously, why are you so lazy? Don't expect any information from me. Do your own hard work to understand science. I have learned the hard way it's a complete waste of time to try to explain anything to a creationist. Their brain is so god-soaked, and they are so brainwashed beyond any hope, they are just not able to understand anything.
BobC »

Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:37 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Shakespeare is also fiction. I love fiction, but not the boring insane fiction in the Bible.

The writers of the Bible knew nothing about science, yet they made scientific claims in Genesis which every educated sane person knows is pure garbage. Anyone who believes anything in Genesis deserves to be laughed at.

Anyway the Bible is off-topic for this thread. The topic of this thread is the liars who work for the Discovery Institute, not the liars who wrote the Bible.

Does it ever bother the creationists the only people they have on their side are the thugs from the Discovery Institute and other people who know nothing about science? Meanwhile, every real scientist in the world, especially the biologists, laugh at how hopelessly backward and deluded the creationists are. Creationists have a terrible reputation for a good reason. Perhaps creationists think the more people who laugh at them, the more likely they will go to the wishful thinking they call heaven. If that's what creationists want, I have good news for them, they really are the laughing-stock of the world. Biologists really do laugh at creationists. You should visit a biology blog and read the countless creationist jokes. Scientists really do think creationists are pathetic.
schumacr »

Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:22 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

BobC - I'm a "flat-earther"? I didn't know that. In any event, I hope you're like me in that you care about the truth. If macroevolution is true, then we should all be evolutionists - no question. But would you agree that if it's true that God created the world, we should all be theists? In any event, even though you didn't answer my initial questions or post any links to transitional forms, I have a few more questions for you.

You seem to like DNA; so do I. It's an example of specified complexity, a language, information, the kind that isn't produced by random chance. It doesn't prove a common ancestor as much as it does a common Designer. Further, the co-discoverer of DNA, Francis Crick, publicly stated that because of DNA's specified complexity, the only way he could see life beginning on earth is if it was planted year by extraterrestrials. How do you like that? A "little green men" argument from the guy who discovered DNA. Who's got the 'faith' now?

You also seem to delight in calling people liars. My question to you is: where does that morality come from? Evolution? Hardly. Without an unchanging standard of morality, you have no basis for making any moral claim. In other words, you can't call a line crooked unless you know what a straight line looks like. And evolution offers no such thing. Further, does your outrage extend to the lies put forth by evolutionists? What about Nebraska man who was made from the tooth of a pig, Haeckel's exaggerated embryos, the faked peppered moths, and others? Are you angry with them too?

Finally, you seem to have no problem saying an eternal universe is as plain as the nose on your face, but you scoff at the concept of an eternal Creator? Why is one eternal being OK and the other not? Where is your proof of an eternal universe? Multiple universes, collapsing universes? No proof I'm afraid.

In the end, you still have not answered the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre's question: "Why do we have 'something' rather than nothing at all?"

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.

Comment on this story