• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dover Penn ID trial

Melendwyr said:
Yes, but as he's trying to convince people who won't permit the hypothesis to be taught if it requires the Christian God or any other god, he's stated that the IDer can have other-than-divine origins. Aliens, for example.

I believe that was asked during the trial itself. I could be mistaken.
Click to expand...
Behe states that the designer could be aliens or time travelers, but no one in the ID movement doesn't believe it's not God. As Rothschild said in his closing argument, "Intelligent Design could not come closer to naming the designer if it was spotted the letters 'G' and 'O'."

What makes it a religious view is that it relies on a supernatural creator, which is the same reason creationism was shot down in Edwards.
 
tsg said:
Behe states that the designer could be aliens or time travelers, but no one in the ID movement doesn't believe it's not God.
Click to expand...
I think you have an extra negative in that statement... or do all IDers believe it wasn't God?
 
CFLarsen said:
Can you find me one who doesn't believe it?

The White Crow argument.
Click to expand...
Here's one, although I'm sure we could argue about what defines 'god'.


tsg said:
... it relies on a supernatural creator ...
Click to expand...
For objective idealists like myself, if it effects or affects what we perceive as the universe, it cannot be supernatural.
 
CFLarsen said:
Can you find me one who doesn't believe it?
QUOTE]
They'll rarely, if ever, admit it. But the choices are clear: God or not-god. If it is not-god, then it must be subject to their original contentions about complexity requiring an intelligent designer. The not-god answer is just begging the question.
Click to expand...
 
hammegk said:
Here's one, although I'm sure we could argue about what defines 'god'.

For objective idealists like myself, if it effects or affects what we perceive as the universe, it cannot be supernatural.
Click to expand...
This is as close as I've ever heard you state your beliefs. Just for clarification (and this is not a set-up, just an honest request for clarification) are you stating that you entertain the possibility of ID, at least in principal, and that the designer in question, while perhaps operating under laws we have not identified, is not necessarily the supernatural God of a particular religion, but is rather of nature, "meta-natural", perhaps?
 
Unoffical election results as far as I can tell from here.

From what I can find out, the Dover Board of Ed had 4 four-year-term seats open, 3 two-year-term seats and one unexpired two-year-term seat to fill.

Alan Bonsell came in dead last for a four-year seat. All the four-year seats went to Democrats, Bryan Rehm being one of them. Sheila Harkins also came in dead last for a two-year seat. Democrats also won all of those. Only two people ran for the unexpired seats. The Democrat won it.

In fact, all the Democrats won, and all the Republicans lost. Take that for what you will.

These results are unofficial and I might be dead wrong about the number of seats.

ETA: Apparently Bill Buckingham wasn't up for re-election.
 
Mojo said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110900114.html :D :D :D
Click to expand...
and Wikinews
All eight open school board seats were won by Dover CARES coalition candidates. Two candidates who had previously voted as school board members to include intelligent design in the public school science curriculum received the fewest votes in Tuesday's election. One of the newly elected board members is Bryan Rehm, a parent of a Dover school student. Rehm, along with ten other parents, initiated a law suit against the school board for its decision to insert Intelligent Design into the science curriculum.
Click to expand...
 
As I posted here, my favorite statement about this election was from one of the losers not reelected:

School board member David Napierskie, who lost Tuesday, said the vote wasn’t just about ideology.

“Some people felt intelligent design shouldn’t be taught and others were concerned about having tax money spent on the lawsuit,” he said.
Click to expand...


You mean the lawsuit started over your ideology?
 
fowlsound said:
As I posted here, my favorite statement about this election was from one of the losers not reelected:




You mean the lawsuit started over your ideology?
Click to expand...
Wow! He MUST be joking. No, never mind, I said that about the original school board decision. I hope I don't have to say that about the judge's finding.

Meanwhile, of course, Kansas, taking full advantage of the spotlight being off them, reverses course again, heading straight for the Laughingstock Lounge. I feel for the good, rational people of Kansas, and hope the last one out turns the lights off. The rest don't need the lights on. They can't read anyway.
 
chipmunk stew said:
This is as close as I've ever heard you state your beliefs. Just for clarification (and this is not a set-up, just an honest request for clarification) are you stating that you entertain the possibility of ID, at least in principal, and that the designer in question, while perhaps operating under laws we have not identified, is not necessarily the supernatural God of a particular religion, but is rather of nature, "meta-natural", perhaps?
Click to expand...
Well? Am I close?
 
"Meta-natural"; don't believe I've heard that one before. Could be; I am a bit partial to a somewhat extended version of Bergsonian elan-vital (although Huxley has suggested what some accept as a stinging rejoinder to Bergson's idea ;)). :)
 
Where does the effective removal of the old school leave the case? If the plaintiffs win, the new board will presumably not want to appeal the decision. Where does this leave the case as a precedent? What other courts is Judge Jones's decision binding on?

Ideally this would have gone all the way up to the SC and set a proper precedent, binding on all courts in the US.
 
chipmunk stew said:
This is as close as I've ever heard you state your beliefs. Just for clarification (and this is not a set-up, just an honest request for clarification) are you stating that you entertain the possibility of ID, at least in principal, and that the designer in question, while perhaps operating under laws we have not identified, is not necessarily the supernatural God of a particular religion, but is rather of nature, "meta-natural", perhaps?
Click to expand...

I can sign up for that as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom