How activist is this judge? Not at all. He's a 2002 George W. Bush appointee, a good friend of former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge (co-chair of Ridge's transition team in 1994). He's a long-time Republican, a candidate for U.S. Congress abotu a decade ago. He's the guy who, when chairman of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, stopped the sales of Bad Frog Beer due to a profane label.
He's so conservative he squeaks.
How dedicated to the truth are you? It seems you've smoked yourself out.
You said:
In my opinion, the correct, founding-father-like ruling would have been: the school board was legally voted in—and what they decide to put in their curriculum is not the federal government’s business—and if you don’t like them, vote them out. (Which is in fact what has already happened.)
Judge Jones noted that the actions of the school board violated the religious freedom clauses of both the Pennsylvania and U.S. Constitutions.
So, you think any elected official is above the law? I doubt any of the founders would have agreed with you on that point. They thought even kings should have to follow the law.
For his ruling that ID is not science, Judge Jones relied on the testimony of experts -- including those for the defense, who also conceded that ID is religiously-based. When the defense concedes a point, I find it particularly ugly to claim they didn't. Your shots at Judge Jones are unfair, and ill-informed.
Sadly for you, the defense was unable to pose a single point on which ID differs from creationism. In fact, the finding that the chief book pushed by the IDists, had simply changed the word "creationist" to "intelligent design" in each reference rather sank the claim you now try to resurrect.
Geeze, it's clear that no one from the creationist side was paying attention in 1981 or 1987 when the courts said all you have to do to get into the textbooks is do some science. But now the stakes were a bit higher -- can't you at least follow the testimony and decision we have now?
Well, I think it was dumb for the previous school panel to introduce ID for religious purposes. I just don't think ID was defended by the right people. It was defended by a christian group. This might be the first, but certainly not the last. It's a shame that people like this judge are having to mediate between what is science or not. This judge was one-sided from the beginning, and he's going to pay for it, and the children out in Dover. What a sad shame!
Dave,
Got something on the testability and falsifiability of ID? Wow, DI would love to have that! Wonder how you managed to do it considering one DI fellow thinks there is no theory yet and another ID sympathiser thinks ID has no content!
Backslapping yes. I for one would like ID to be taught and explained further but not in biology class. It firmly belongs in the Philosophy/Comparative Religion field.
I'd just like to see the antifanatics admit that there's purpose in nature.
I don't care about politics.
David,
Unfortunately science is not just about backslapping - it is about research, experimentation, discussion, review and theory formulation. Even with all the brouhaha over Crackpottery v3.r1. few scientists care or even know about ID and Dover. It's another matter for the public at large. No one would want their chidren having to read up on ID for a graduation test.
Mr. Heddle,
I can't believe that you leveled the activist judge canard. Here's what Jones had to say in the matter from the CNN article:
"Jones -- an appointee of President Bush, who backs the teaching of intelligent design -- defended his decision in personal terms.
"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist court," Jones writes.
"Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on intelligent design, who in combination drove the board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy," he said."
Thr URL is here:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/2...sign/
index.html
"A creationist is a person who believes that one of the most crucial insights about our existence and the existence of our Universe is that they have been *created* by a supreme being, and that this insight should have a significant impact on our lives including science."
This definition would NOT include theistic evolutionists for this reason: they don't feel that their god belief must have a significant impact on science. IDers can't separate god and evolution whilst theistic evolutionists can. THAT'S the difference.
GCT,
Then what is theistic about theistic evolution? How does it differe from garden-variety evolution?
If God has no significant impact--then there is another name for that: deism.
No. The difference is that science is held separately from their beliefs. They are fully able to do science and keep their beliefs separate. This does NOT mean that they have to believe that god is not involved in the world today.
Unfortunately science is not just about backslapping - it is about research, experimentation, discussion, review and theory formulation.
Somebody should tell this to the antifanatical evobiologists who willfully deny the possibility that there is evidence that we're not here by accident, because they're too busy believing that this evidence can or would constitute evidence for god.
It's too bad that neither side cares about the way that science is done.
No, you are describing "theistic evolutionist" simply as someone who believes in evolution and believes in God. There is no need for such a term--it is already obvious that some evolutionists believe in God and others do not. We don't bother with similar obvious terms "theistic physicist" or "theistic electrical engineer".
If the term "theistic evolutionist" means anything at all, then it must mean the belief that God, at some level, controlled the evolutionary process to ensure that his sovereign plan was not thwarted.
If you disagree, then explain whether or not "theistic evolutionist" simply means someone who believes in God and evolution--and if not, what does it mean beyond that?
Mr. Heddle,
The term "theistic evolutionist" only came about because Creationists have tried to play up the false dichotomy that it's either god or evolution. That is why we don't have "theistic physicist" or "theistic electrical engineer." When the Creationists target those areas, perhaps those terms will be coined. In fact, the term, "evolutionist" itself sprang from the Creationists as well, in an attempt to paint evolution as some sort of "ism" that is on par with Creationism. If they are just "isms" then why can't we choose which one we like and teach that?
So, yes, "theistic evolutionist" is one who holds that there is god and accepts evolution. That person could be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Deist, Pagan, etc. That person could hold that god set the laws of the universe then let it all play out, or that god intervenes to cause random mutations and/or sets the conditions of natural selection to attain desired outcomes, or any number of other things that god can do. That person could think that god doesn't work on nature, but on people's hearts (touches their hearts and emotions or something) for all I care.
Note, this is not a form of ID.
Island,
Beyond your bloviations, you have no evidence that we are here either by accident or design. Only if one accepts your unwarranted a priori assumptions can one conclude that there is evidence for design.
GCT,
I know people, personally, who call themselves theistic evolutionists and who would strongly disagree with your definition. Nevertheless, I see no value in further debate.
No, that's patently false. Lenny's interpretation of the anthropic principle is a valid scientific interpretation that only willfully ignorant fanatics refuse to recognize.
Dr. Susskind did not say that we would be hard-pressed to answer IDist's claims, (if there is no multiverse), because there is no such evidence.
Lenny proved that this interpretation is conditional... on the condition that you can lose the implication for special signifcance in a multiverse. Otherwise... he said, scientists will ignore it and look for other explanations... He so much as admitted that this is the view that science holds and I have personally verified that this sickness is spread-out across the board.
You don't know what you're talking about... but go ahead... keep proving that I'm right.
Oh, so Lenny says, well then it must be true....
C'mon Island. Specialness is an unverifiable concept. It is dependent on what one is special to, and in this case you are positing some sort of metaphysical claim that makes us special. I'm sorry, but either you are misconstruing his arguments, or you are both wrong. You can not prove that we are special. Even if it turns out that there is only one place in the universe where life exists and it is Earth, that does not necessitate that we are "special," and you can't scientifically prove that we are "special."
GTC is correct the entire argument of Island is based off of an assumption; Island is safe to spout his silly talk for now until he can either prove his hypothesis or it is removed because it may never be testable.
And for Island’s slander against the evolutionists I find it funny, on one hand there are IDers saying things like there are multitudes of evolutionists that believe in god, and in their next breath they say that the entire scientific world is holding their theory back. Which one is it? Surely the scientists that believe in god would support any viable hypothesis.
Island however bulls forward believing that some massive worldwide conspiracy exists to keep his little hypothesis out of main stream science. Talk about childish thinking!
Lastly, Island please stay angry and venomous, it will keep most of the people you talk to from listening to a word you say, and that is doing everyone a favor.
Later
This is the old ID == creationism canard, which Jones bought hook, line and sinker.
What do you mean "canard"? Remember what happened:
1) Young Earth Creationists try to get Genesis 1 put in all the schools. They fail in the courts.
2) After being defeated Young Earth Creationists rally around Intelligent Design as a fallback position and try to get it put in all the schools.
3) Result: ID = Six-Day-Zap Creationism.
And so a 400-year-old natural theology philosophy becomes nothing more than a weapon against Evolution. (When did Christians kick Christ out and enthrone We Hate Evolution/Down With Darwin in His place?)
Hey Frank. The fact that you don't have the first clue how science is done has nothing to do with the fact that I don't need my hypotheisis to defend the anthropic principle on its own merrits, proven predictions, scientific papers... etc...
You can not prove that we are special.
tich tich... you don't need to prove it to make it a valid hypothesis, you only need some science that backs the interpretation. Too bad that you don't know any science.
Like Darwin supported his theory macroscopically via the "writing on the wall", it is similarly supported that intelligence eables humans to be comparitively, extremely adept at efficiently increasing the entropy of an expanding entropic universe.
Which is what it's all about in an expanding universe... "alfie".
You can't assume that we aren't an integral part of this process, especially when there is evidence that we aren't here by accident.
Then it's not an unfounded assumption.
Does it make testable predictions?
Yes.
Have these predictions been proven to be of value to science?
Yes.
Then it's not just a hypothesis...
You really should learn a little science, Frank.
And FYI... physicists don't dispute that I have a point, only antifanatics do that... Frank.
~
Up next... Frank shows more of his ignorance, and somehow the fact that he can grunt in unison with other monkeys makes them believe that they've won, but without ever actually doing any science.
Island
You should pay more attention,
I did not write the post that you attacked, that was Ken. But again you saw just what you wanted and ignored the plain facts staring you in the face. This seems to be a habit with you.
Thank you for making my point for me.
Later
I did not write the post that you attacked, that was Ken.
lol... you really think so?
Then you didn't read what was written because it was addressed to you, by name... in context with your contentless tribal-session with GCT.
I said nothing to Ken, thanks for volunteering me tho...
Where's the science, Frank?
Click-on my name and goto my website and bring back something from the first several paragraphs that you think that you can challenge.
Show me VERY SPECIFICALLY where I've made an assumption that I have not justified with evidence that supports any claims.
And then we can talk about the common misconceptions that run rampant around ideologically motivated websites about the anthropic principle, from groups on either side that are so pre-prejudiced against each other, that neither side cares anything about doing science when it comes to this subject.
The only people that would be offended by that are extremists, so you won't mind, I'm sure.
Island
Oh my gosh! You are correct!!!! (I guess there is a first time for everything) you did not attack Ken, it was GTC's arguments you attacked. Wow don’t you feel superior now.
Here we go again, your argument about anthropic principle hinges on the one universe model. You cannot prove this model to be accurate. Therefore anything you say after that fact is speculation at best. Your brain dead sickafant wishful thinking at worst. Ill go with the ladder.
Also you never answered this question: Wouldn’t the scientists that believe in God support any viable hypothesis that proved a designer?
Later
Here we go again, your argument about anthropic principle hinges on the one universe model. You cannot prove this model to be accurate.
Nope... One universe IS evidenced.
It's not up to me to prove that more exist just because you say that it's possible.
It's known as the default model for which all observations and theories must agree, until, if, and when you can ever prove otherwise, either experimentally, or if you can prove that your "belief" is required by the one true theory of everything, but not with semi-successful theories that are known to be flawed.
There is no argument about this, Frank, you're just wrong.
GCT yourcharacterisation of Theistic Evolution is incorrect. A person who holds to theistic evolution is someone who holds to God guiding the process of evolution, someone who would say that God used the process of evolution in a proprietry way to bring about a desirable end (though they may not say it they way 
)
What you describe, as David has already pointed out is Deistic evolution which is functioally no different from 'naturalistic evolution'.
Island
“Nope... One universe IS evidenced.”
Most scientists would say “At least one universe is evidenced” but I suppose those are the multitude of conspirators all in league to stop anthropic principle from being unveiled into the real sciences.
“It's not up to me to prove that more exist just because you say that it's possible.”
You are correct again (miracles never cease) If I had ever claimed there are multiple universes it would be up to me to prove it. But it was in fact you that made the claim of only one universe. Since you are claiming only one universe then it is up to you to show that there is only one, especially since your entire hypothesis hinges on that variable.
Later
So, Mr Heddle
Have you actually read the opinion yet?
It's pretty clear why the judge found that ID=creationism. He specifically did NOT find that creationsim must be young earth creationism. All intellectually honest people recognize that creationism comes in different flavors and one of those is old earth creationism. The judge correctly found there is no practical difference between "Michael Behe" ID and old earth creationism.
Neither are science.
lol@Frank
You are correct again...
I'm glad that you're finally getting a clue.
Study the subject for about twenty more years and maybe somebody will someday say that to you too...
Island
Well there you go taking information out of context again, why am I not surprised?
Later
Seriously, frank, that was the closest thing to science that I could find to respond to.
Island who said we were discussing science?
It is clear you have no regard for the workings of the scientific field since (I will say it one more time) your hypothesis is based off an assumption you can’t prove. And to date not even attempted to show, I might add.
And yes it is up to you to prove it since you are making the claim, and your hypothesis depends on it.
This is no surprise to me since you like to take information out of context at your conveyance.
It is not my fault that you do not know science well enough to debate the subject. So instead we have been discussing, your unwarranted yet arrogant and childish attitude. Which you show off proudly for all of us to laugh at.
You laugh a-lot so I must conclude that ignorance truly is bliss, and you have that in abundance.
Later
Island
Think of this, can you think of anything that there is only one of in nature?
Let’s start small: Atoms… nope, Molecules…, nope, Sand… Nope, plants… nope, weasels… nope,
Lest look at a larger scale: Rivers… nope, Oceans… nope Deserts… nope, Planets… nope, stars… nope, Black holes… nope, galaxies… nope. Universes…
Well we just don’t know yet, but why rule out the possibility? Nothing in the scope of human understanding leans towards a single universe model; if we use the rest of nature as an example it is quite the opposite. You refuse to accept this possibility yet everything we see in the universe so far leads us to believe that everything is duplicated.
Why not universes?
I don’t really expect an answer except some blabbering about my lack of science skills, but that would only make you look foolish again, so go ahead.
Later
I don't have to prove anything about numbers of universes to derive a theory for only one, because validity is proven by the accuracy of the predictions that are made.
Theories are proven on the basis of their testability and reproducability, falsification isn't required, only the ability to do so is required. Go look under all the rocks that you'd like to in that effort, and good luck to you.
You're unconditionally wrong.
If, by what could only be some true act of god, string theory suddenly starts making accurate and reliable predictions, then we will be forced to assume the multiverse is an accurate representation of nature without ever being able to prove it.
You're just unconditionally wrong.
It seems so clear -- we cannot separate the issue the origin of life from our core beliefs of God.
Religion is defined as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" by Merriam Webster.
Merriam Webster defines humanism as "a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses and individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason."
Atheism is defined as "the doctrine that their is no deity."
Theism is the "belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcents yet is immanent in the world."
The reason this is such a heated debate that both evolutionism and creationism often carry with them intrinsic beliefs of God's existence or nonexistence.
I maintain that the absence of religion is a-religion or a-theism as we most often put it.
There are a menu of human beliefs but only one belief seems to be allowed in the halls of education -- that of human reason sans human spirituality.
No scientist can tell us the divide between mind, body, soul, and spirit. How can we so easily see the divisions as we educate children?
It is important that to be educated children must be shown the various sides of an issue. Although a creationist myself, it was important for me to study evolutionism. Although I believe in democracy, I have read Lenin, Marx, and Nietzsche. To deny children the theory of Intelligent Design is just as terrible as to deny them the teaching of evolutionism.
We need educated children not brainwashed children. The only countries I know of that prevent debate and free speech are communist. Free speech seems to become more narrowly defined as those of the atheist religion do all within their power to stamp out any vestiges of theism within our schools.
This separation of church and state as is often cited has become separation of God and man. A specific religion is far different from theism versus atheism. I would maintain that any world view could be classified into theism, atheism, and if you get right down to it, polytheism. Why has atheism/ humanism become the only religion taught in our schools?
This one sided presentation of science is underestimating the intelligence of students and their teachers. I thought we were mature enough in this country to share all sides of an issue.
Island
I love the way you make reckless statements like “You're just unconditionally wrong.”
I, according to you am wrong about what? I never made a claim except, that you cannot prove your hypothesis. (Which you can’t) You insist that because we can only see one universe that that there can only be one. I believe this to be an ignorant claim.
Remember not so long ago people thought that there was only one moon, only one planet, and only one sun. Now we have the instruments to show that that is not true. Why do you resist the possibility of other universes so desperately? Your attitude makes you sound like a Flat Earther. “The scientists are evil, conspiring baddies, they said bad things about my hypothesis” Get over it! (Cry baby) until you can actually test anything from your hypothesis, or make a prediction that holds up under repeated testing than you are just spitting garbage.
One last thing: Many scientists are beginning to think that life is so adaptable that it could evolve anywhere that liquid water exists. If this is actually the case the evidence you propose would be the same except for opposite reasons. Instead of life needing this environment to survive, life tailored itself to this environment. In either case the result would look the same.
Later
Frank, you're a context manipulating loser to the nth^.
I, according to you am wrong about what? I never made a claim except, that you cannot prove your hypothesis. (Which you can’t) You insist that because we can only see one universe that that there can only be one. I believe this to be an ignorant claim.
No fool... only one universe exists until somebody proves otherwise, because this is all that is currently evidenced.
That doesn't mean that more can't exist.
It means that you're a clueless moron.
Island
Wow great response, calling me a looser, and a clueless moron is an awesome display of your debating prowess, and your maturity. (How old are you anyway, 9?) I will respond at your level, I’m rubber your glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.
Finally you admit other universes can exist. So you are also admitting (indirectly) that you might be wrong about anthropic principle. How does it feel to be honest for the first time? Or do you just feel tricked? Either one is fine by me.
That will do pig, that will do.
Thanks!
David,
I understand how evolution works (and worked), and I am a Christian. I'm called a "theistic evolution" person by creationists and IDists who usually couple the label with some claptrap about "lukewarmism" and then try to insult me in some other way.
So, I gues a theist evolutionist is someone who has a brain and is Christian. 
In a slightly more serious vein, my faith tells me God directs the processes of the universe. But it doesn't give a clue as to exactly how God does that, or what I would look for if I wanted to play Thomas and demand to put my fingers in the nail holes. IDists and creationists usually offer some form of creation and insist that God do it that way.
So I suppose a theistic evolutionist is someone who doesn't pretend to order God around, yet still believes in Him.
Matt,
I did not describe deistic evolutionists. Do you even read what is written before you go off? I described the whole gamut from deistic to any other "istic" evolutionist. All are covered under "theistic evolutionist" because the term really means one who accepts evolution while still holding to a god belief.
BrightIdeaguru,
If atheism is a religion, perhaps you could tell us what atheists worship? What rituals atheists have? What specific positive beliefs they hold?
The denial of god belief is not a separate belief in itself.
I can shake off the mad chase murder metamorphosis, because I spend money on the line to buy a thousand miles of horse. I can easily get to the attack on pet; because I bought the pet will help me fight back. The most important is mabinogi online gold, it can help you kill others online. Help me a hand; it is precisely because the killings have brought resentment, more people willing to spend money to buy it.
If atheism is a religion, perhaps you could tell us what atheists worship?
Richard Dawkins
What rituals atheists have?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w...ptism-ceremony/
What specific positive beliefs they hold?
religion is stupid and must be done away with for the good of humanity
atheists are the only truly smart people in the world
anyone who does not believe the above two assertions is an "appeaser" and must be done away with--uh, i mean "is no true atheist."
Somone is confalting 'atheist' with 'anti-theist'. Perhaps it's a character flaw in some theists that they can't conceptualize folks not having a god?
When my alone person paces back and forth Habbo nearby guesthouse time, I always like quietly visiting me the valuable friend; you can buy cheap Habbo credits when you needs, Each time looks that the treasures are brimming with warm and the sincere smiling face, I then as if hear nearby the ear to pass on the sound which good fortune Pouched opens.
If you thought that this is leisure game set platform merely. Have Habbo credits always as a manner of daily life that was completely mistaken.
Someone should make a board game where you have to deceifer this translator.
That was great.
When you have cheap Atlantica online Gold, you can sell out to others!
At last, Atlantica online money always is very important with you!
Thank it again. Thank warhammer money .
Sometimes, when someone has no money, any of us will give knight online gold to him, because we are a group.
Rolex Day Date watches and replica Rolex Day Date watches made with swiss movement ! so cheap and high quality ! accept paypal ,and 14 days money back without reason !
Commenting by HaloScan
