Posted on 01/08/2009 7:57:56 PM PST by Coyoteman
Abstract: ID (‘intelligent design’) is not science, but a form of creationism; both are very different from the simple theological proposition that a divine Creator is responsible for the natural patterns and processes of the Universe. Its current version maintains that a ‘Designer’ must intervene miraculously to accomplish certain natural scientific events. The verdict in the 2005 case Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover School District, et al. (in Harrisburg, PA, U.S.A.) was a landmark of American jurisprudence that prohibited the teaching of ID as science, identified it as religiously based, and forbade long-refuted ‘criticisms of evolution’ from introduction into public school classes. Much of the science of the trial was based on biochemistry; biochemists and other scientists have several important opportunities to improve scientific literacy and science education in American public schools (‘state schools’) by working with teachers, curriculum developers and textbook writers.
(Excerpt) Read more at biochemj.org ...
And much of it was based upon pure conjecture. Please not this old 2005 case, again. The judge had an axe to grind and Penn. is a small state. Look around, why didn’t everyone leap at his “wisdom”? Evidence.
You have to be created before you can evolve.
I know I'd be shaken up myself, but, Fur Shur, I would not have ruled out the possibility that such a thing could exist given the size and age of this universe.
The judge's reach into the utiity and efficacy of what he construed to be religious beliefs went way beyond the needs of the case. That's why he's usually thought of as a fascist, and most likely the reason no one but "pure thought, true beliefs" types keep bringing that case up.
If I remember correctly, the judge was asked by both sides to determine whether ID was religion or science.
That right there should have stopped his attempt to meet their request to rule on what was or was not religion.
The fact he didn't punt on that particular question (like any normal judge would) demonstrated he wasn't capable of judging anymore.
I doubt anyone at all would be citing that decision if the judge had, perhaps, said "Well, chemistry is religious. No one really knows if valence is a fair description of what really happens, or just a handy, but otherwise mystical notation that sometimes coincides with other observations".
We have identified various forces in the universe. Are we sure we have identified all of them?
What if there is an X force that is unmeasurable but creates order out of chaos?
Scientists refusal to consider that another force may be involved because it comes too close to invoking a theistic solution may blind them from discovering the existence of a force that could explain some of the questions regarding probability or rather improbability.
Great post. Well illustrated in this video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc&feature=related
Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview
The “judge’s” decision was written by the ACLU. ‘Nuff said.
That right there should have stopped his attempt to meet their request to rule on what was or was not religion.
The fact he didn't punt on that particular question (like any normal judge would) demonstrated he wasn't capable of judging anymore.
From the article:
Should judges decide what science is?
DI spokesmen and other political supporters of ID criticized the judge for overstepping his intellectual and legal bounds by ruling on whether or not ID was science. But Judge Jones literally had no choice but to rule on whether or not ID was science. The plaintiffs asked him to rule on exactly this, and so did the defence. The TMLC's chief counsel for the defence, Richard Thompson, acknowledged that, like the attorneys for the plaintiffs, the defence had asked the judge to rule on the question of whether ID was science. They staked their whole case on the notion that ID was legitimate science, and that therefore teaching it had a legitimate secular purpose and secular effect, and this outweighed any religious goals that individual board members might have had. The judge did exactly what both sides asked him to do. It is unfortunate for the ID supporters that they did not take that brief more seriously. And it is important to understand that the judge did not decide what is science and what is not. Nobody inside or outside the legal profession wants judges to do that. What the judge did was to rule on what the scientific community considers science, which is quite a different thing. His path was easy in that respect, because the DI and other ID proponents had no support whatsoever from the scientific community, whereas evolution received nothing but the strongest support.
First off you don't decide what is or is not religion, or truly religious. Not your job. End of story. Still, Congress had told us that standard non-profit rates should be offered to churches, synagogues, etc.
Fortunately those are "group events", so all they had to prove was that they were a group, and had rules, scriptures, or something, that they used. No need to examine the scriptures. No need to give nonprofit rates to individuals who thought they were a church.
Still, we'd get complaints that "so and so is not a true religion". Fortunately the constituion prohibits the government from deciding that question.
ACLU doesn't understand that part (and you note another poster says they wrote the decision, and as I recall that's true ~ their lawyer handed it to the judge to sign ~ happens all the time).
In my own opinion the judge stepped off the planet with his decision ~ and subsequently literally everybody, including the ACLU, has ignored it. It's kind of like a turd in a punchbowl ~ should you scoop it out or ignore it. At the moment people simply have their backs turned.
Counsel for the fundies didn't do a good job ~ it was like no one there had ever actually handled a case where the "true religion" (manifest in its guise as "true science") question had been raised. It's a tricky question of course.
Figures 3 and 4). Even The Fundamentals, a series of pamphlets published between 1910 and 1915 to explain and defend Biblical inerrancy, did not target evolution as a major, irreconcilable opponent [12–15]. The situation changed for ‘fundamentalists’ (as they came to be named, after the pamphlets) only after World War I, which destroyed naïve faith in ‘progress’ and launched a search for the cause of such carnage [16]. Fundamentalists blamed the historical field of ‘higher criticism’ of the Bible (which began in Germany) for a loss of faith and then morality in that country. Fearing the same would happen in the U.S., fundamentalists battled more liberal ‘modernists’ for the soul and control of their denominations. The controversy spilled over into the political domain when three-times presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, who had spent his career on nationwide political ‘crusades’, decided that evolution, now widespread with the rise of high schools and biology classes, had been a contributing factor in the loss of Biblical faith and rise of German militarism. He launched his final crusade against evolution in the schools [13,17].
William Jennings Bryan was a big-time Progressive, who wanted to use the power of the government to improve society, and proudly was a leader in four Progressive Constitutional amendments...that have greatly damaged the institutions of American government and society. The anti-evolution crusade has a Progressive origin...and those who call the pro-science posters here "liberals" should know that.
Many scientists are under the impression that science and religion have always been at war over evolution and the age of the Earth, but historians have shown that this was not the case. By the 1910s, Darwin's Origin of Species was over 50 years old and not a topic of major religious controversy (...
First off you don't decide what is or is not religion, or truly religious. Not your job. End of story. Still, Congress had told us that standard non-profit rates should be offered to churches, synagogues, etc.
If you don't want judges deciding what is and what is not science, perhaps you should leave that to scientists.
This case came about when creationists tried to force their religious beliefs into science classes.
It is not a landmark in American jurisprudence.
First of all, that decision is binding on no other party and is arguably not even binding on the Dover School District since the case was not appealed by the new school board.
In any event, no other court or judge is required to give this case even the slightest degree of credibility since there was no appeal and no appellate decision.
The solution, of course, is privatization of K-12 schools. This is only way to end the constant bickering.
* One group would would teach evolution within a framework of a godless worldview.
* Another groups would teach the **exact** same evolution but within a God-centered worldview.
*The last group would teach creationism. I surely wouldn't agree with them but it is their right to do this. Also, if the kid really wanted to move forward in biology, they could take a class at the community college. ( No big deal!)
Evolution is merely one example among hundreds demonstrating that government schools are a First Amendment and freedom of conscience nightmare and should be abolished.
This case came about when creationists tried to force their religious beliefs into science classes.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This case came about because government schools ***fundamentally** are a freedom of conscience and First Amendment nightmare!
It isn’t just evolution. It is hundreds of issues!
Schools must make binary decisions on hundreds of issues. The winner of these decisions gets to trample the freedom of conscience of the other. ( And....We all get to pay for it.)
INTREP
Unfortunately what you ask for would lead to total Balkanization.
I'm afraid that the results would be far less productive than you expect. We are seeing way to much Balkanization now, and you want to remove the single best socializing and acculturating vehicle we have?
Its nice for everyone to march to a different drummer, but that's no way to run a parade.
Judges can't decide whether a certain religious view is "true," but courts can determine whether something is religiously-based. They do it all the time in 1st Amendment cases.
Knew it! It does seem that the evolutionists are the biggest defenders of trampling on the freedom of conscience of their neighbor.
But....It's for their own good, right? ( barf!)
Why not?
and is arguably not even binding on the Dover School District since the case was not appealed by the new school board.
A party can't make a court decision non-binding by refusing to appeal the decision.
In any event, no other court or judge is required to give this case even the slightest degree of credibility since there was no appeal and no appellate decision.
That's completely wrong. Unless someone successfully appeals a case, or it is later overridden by a subsequent decision, a decision sets a legal precedent. The fact that it was not appealed is irrelevant.
I've asked wintertime, repeatedly, to cite one legal case that supports her belief that public schools violate the 1st Amendment, and she has, repeatedly, dodged the question.
Erwin Schroedinger, dear friends! Speaking of the "bankrupts of rationalism"!
I will. An excellent resource is the Alliance for the Separation of School and State, one of the links JR has on his homepage.
I think you minimize the relevance of evolution related science to education,(acceding to YEC demands would requires gelding of all science subjects, including geology, astronomy, physics, as well as biology) but as I see it, the public skool system is much more damaging to education than the prospect of Creationists teaching their own kids their own creation mythology.
I thought you were attempting to justify teaching Creationism, or prevent the teaching of evolution, but if I understand you, I am in agreement with you.
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
What does this judge's gratuitous theological opining have to do with his deciding what is and what is not science?
Cordially,
School is a parade? Boy, you could really milk this metaphor, though, because in any kind of big parade, the bands each march to the beat of their own drums. The parade itself is a rather loose amalgam in one dimension.
Aren't you folks at all worried about Balkanization?
You really should be. The multicultural movement and bilingual education efforts are significant contributors to Balkanization and you can see what harm they are doing. And you just want to make it worse!?!
This is one of the reasons we can't fight a war any longer; there is no longer a core set of beliefs and values in this country. And your efforts to split the schools into potentially hundreds or thousands of smaller factions would make this problem many times worse!
In the past, somewhat universal military service provided an additional acculturating experience, but that has long since been eliminated.
You really should consider the law of unintended consequences, and the dangers of getting what you wish for!
If you think a politically neutral school is possible then please outline one for us. I will have great fun with it.
My husband and I taught our children the minimum basics of evolution but it was framed within a God-centered worldview. The two younger now have B.S degrees in math at 18. One was awarded a masters degree at 20, and the other is pursuing a degree in chemical engineering. ( Plenty of science in our family even with all the “God stuff”! )
But,...The anointed evolutionist priesthood evidently thinks they can make better decisions for a child than the child's own parents. And....have no scruples about turning the threat of armed police action on their neighbor. Remember behind every government K-12 stand police ready to force attendance and to collect the taxes .
The evolutionists whine and cry about how creationists and IDers want to force religion on them! Are they kidding? Ann Coulter is right! When a liberal/Marxist cries that he is the “victim” look a little closer and you will soon see he is the **OPPRESSOR!**
Every IDer and creationist I know favors privatization of K-12 schools. It is the evolutionists who want children herded into government schools ( under threat of armed police action) and taxpayers threatened with sheriffs auction of their property if they refuse to pay for it.
Yeah! Real nice guys these evolutionists. I think they are bullies.
You want a legal case? Well...It starts with an idea! The idea is that government schools never were, are not now, and never can be religious neutral.
Behind every government school stands an armed policeman with real bullets in that gun on the hip...and...The evolutionists are standing proudly beside him. ( By the way, in our county the police wear brown shirts.)
(Please read my tag.)
Good! I have a fellow traveler.
As posted previously we taught the basics of evolution in our homeschool but it was framed withing the context of Christian worldview.
I disagree with the young earthers for all the reasons you cited...but...Hey! Even if a YEC choose a YEC private school for their kid, all is not lost. If the child really wishes to pursue science there are always remedial courses at the community college.
The underlying problem here is **not**evolution or creationism or Intelligent Design. The fundamental problem is that government schools trample freedom of conscience.
Unfortunately what you ask for would lead to total Balkanization.
I'm afraid that the results would be far less productive than you expect. We are seeing way to much Balkanization now, and you want to remove the single best socializing and acculturating vehicle we have?
Its nice for everyone to march to a different drummer, but that's no way to run a parade.
Like William Jennings Bryan's anti-evolution crusade, your response smacks of Progressivism, "we must all march together to our glorious common perfect future." BS. I went to both public schools and private; the private schools had far less money (because the parents, not the taxpayers, were footing the bills) but the private schools provided a far more educationally-oriented and caring setting. Many of the public school teachers acted like what they were--petty bureaucrats. While there are good public schools, those are the schools who have students from well-off, well-educated parents. The most educationally needy students are totally failed by public schooling.
And with Creationists training their youth to harass science teachers ("Where you there?"), and parents harassing administrators, in many schools evolution-related, and even other science-related topics that could offend YECcers get short-shrift.
Meanwhile, public schools teach "civil rights" (the goodness of gay sex) and environmentalism as a religion.
And NEA/Democrat Party unions hold the children of our communities hostage.
No, winter is right.
Does the parade goose step? ( just wondering)
And when did government schools become the “best” at anything especially “socialization” and “acculturation” ?
You'll wish for the good old days when this country has 20 or 30 major languages and ethnic/religious groups, all clustering into different ghettos, each with their own schools, churches etc., cultures and the like.
Look at the problems Europe is having with these non-assimilated ghettos--and you want to bring that here. No thanks.
No we are not. Multiculturalism and bilingual education are follies mostly of the tax-payer funded, public school systems, in most cases against the will of parents. Public school systems have been captured in large part by the left and have little interest in incubating traditional culture and values.
Signing off for now, I expect we'll discuss this in the future...
You obviously have NO clue about how precedents are set. Your statement is so far off base, I will not even bother to address your other comments. If there is no appellate decision, there is no precedent. It's as simple as that. Even if there was an appellate decision in that circuit in this case, it would not be binding on any other circuit.
You keep moving the goalposts. First, you were discussing religious neutrality, now it's political neutrality. In the context of teaching evolution, at least, political neutrality is quite easily reached by simply teaching the scientific consensus on the theory.
But,...The anointed evolutionist priesthood evidently thinks they can make better decisions for a child than the child's own parents.
I'm not sure how teaching a scientific theory that is accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists in the relevant fields in any way takes decision-making out of the hands of parents. Do you object to the teaching of the theory of gravity, or the germ theory of infection?
Remember behind every government K-12 stand police ready to force attendance and to collect the taxes.
Basically, you don't like the fact that the people in your county or state have made the legitimate decision, through the democratic process, to fund public schools. Well, too bad for you. If you can get enough of your fellow citizens to change these laws, more power to you. But, until you do, you are bound to follow such laws. The whining is unbecoming for a supposed conservative.
You want a legal case? Well...It starts with an idea! The idea is that government schools never were, are not now, and never can be religious neutral.
If you are suffering under such a terible injustice, why don't you file a lawsuit in Federal court, rather than just anonymously whining on a website?
( By the way, in our county the police wear brown shirts.)
You're now comparing the local police in your county to Hitler's brown shirts? That's laughable and insulting to anyone who actually had to live under the reign of terror of the real brown shirts. Your hyperbole is disgusting.
I'd have removed him from the bench instantly (had I the power to do so).
The guy scandalized everybody in government who ever has to make decisions that skirt around questions of religion, and most particularly the validity or invalidity of any particular religious belief.
As far as the plaintiffs asking the judge to do that, he should have simply refused to do so ~ it ain't his business, and the First Amendment says so.
Reminder to coyoteman, this ain't England!
They are limited to a purely secular view. Else, they enter into theological dispute and our law has no room for such things.
Give you an example ~ hospitals. You go to a hospital and the attending physician is simply a private individual who has permission to practice in that hospital.
The nurses could well be employed by your insurance company, or the physician or physicians group doing the work on you, or they might be part of a nonprofit charitable trust contracted with by the hospital to provide necessary services to practitioners.
Schools could readily be operated the exact same way.
Something like that anyway.
The problem is the nature of the public schools, not the nature of the fundie beliefs, nor of science.
He didn't interject his own religious beliefs. He determined, based on the evidence, that ID was religion and that it was being dishonestly pushed into the science classrooms in violation of law.
The guy scandalized everybody in government who ever has to make decisions that skirt around questions of religion, and most particularly the validity or invalidity of any particular religious belief.
He didn't decide "the validity or invalidity of any particular religious belief." He determined that ID was inappropriate for a science class--not being science.
The whole issue here is that the Dover school board tried to force their narrow fundamentalist view of religion into the science classes and they got caught.
Hm?...Very interesting idea!
Conservatives have no desire to crush the freedom of conscience of another citizen. The last thing a conservative would want to do is be King of the Hill standing on the freedom of conscience of his neighbor.
Stating an axiom is not whining. It is stating a fact:
Axiom: It is impossible to have a religiously, culturally, and politically neutral education.
Corollary I: **ALL** government schools **establish** the religion, cultural, and political worldview of the most politically powerful. ( As a graduate of Cornell Law school you should recognize that there is a **fundamental** problem with the First Amendment there. )
Basically, you don't like the fact that the people in your county or state have made the legitimate decision, through the democratic process, to fund public schools.
Our Founding Fathers warned us about the democratic voting mob and advocated that we maintain as limited government as possible to contain the power of the mob.
You are a graduate of Cornell Law school. You should **know** that!
Yep! Our county police wear brown shirts. If the communists ever do gain control of our nation, I am not entirely certain they would line up with those of us who would defend the Constitution.
Yes he did. He nakedly purports to falsify a religious presupposition:
"...many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general..."
The judge's gratuitous assertion is based entirely on his own theological presuppositions, which are clearly antithetical to the theological doctrines of many Biblically oriented creationists whose doctrine it is that evolutionary theory is completely at odds with a belief in the existence of a supreme being.
It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with the presuposition; the question is, where in the hell does a judge get authority to falsify a religious presupposition in the first place?
Cordially,
This morning I bought a 64 ounce diet Mountain Dew ( Love the stuff) at our local carry out. I use a refill cup that I bought from a gas station 3 states away. Isn't it amazing? I can take a lid from my carry-out and it fits my refill cup. The new straw is the perfect length too. Amazing! I all fits? The hand of the free market seamlessly regulates even the size and shape of lids for soda cups!
We would see the same thing in education. Parents are **not** stupid!!! They will demand that their child's school prepares them for life in the U.S. And...Their private school will accommodate them.
Now...Please remember that Islam is like a filafel. It's inside meat is political, social, and economic oppression. It's outer wrapping is a thin layer of religion.
If Islam is a problem here in the U.S. the solution is in controlling immigration!!!
We **KNOW** for a FACT that government schooling has done NOTHING to socialize the Muslims in Europe. I would be foolish indeed to think it would work here as well. Government schooling is like using a water pistol to fight a raging forest fire.
If government schooling isn't working with the Muslim population in Europe, why, on earth would you think it would work here????
Citzen Blade, do I have you confused with someone else. I think I remember you saying you were a Cornell Law School graduate.
Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Of course not. And since secular public schools do no such thing, what's the issue?
Stating an axiom is not whining. It is stating a fact:
I don't think that word means what you think it means. It doesn't mean "wintertime's opinion" it means "a self-evident truth that requires no proof."
Axiom wintertime's unsubstantiated opinion: It is impossible to have a religiously, culturally, and politically neutral education.
There, fixed it for you.
**ALL** government schools **establish** the religion, cultural, and political worldview of the most politically powerful
Again, just your opinion, with no real evidence to back it up.
( As a graduate of Cornell Law school you should recognize that there is a **fundamental** problem with the First Amendment there. )
I see no Constitutional violation in the existence of secular public schools.
Our Founding Fathers warned us about the democratic voting mob and advocated that we maintain as limited government as possible to contain the power of the mob.
Of course. But, most state Constitutions, as enacted by the people of those states, grant those states the power to establish public schools. Which is the point of Federalism- individual states can govern themselves as they see fit, so long as they do not violate the COTUS.
Yep! Our county police wear brown shirts.
So what? Your insinuation here is sickening and shows a distrubing lack of understanding of history.
I see what you're trying to say. You are correct that the decision is not controlling authority- it could be overturned by the appeals court of that circuit and other circuits may come to different conclusions. But, barring a contrary decision either by the appelate court in that circuit or in another circuit, other courts will look at this case as persuasive authority when determining similar cases.
Citizen Blade, There are 3 ways to approach this and each one has PROFOUND religious consequence for the children. It seems you are having trouble getting a grip on that.
1) Evolution would be taught from a godless worldview perspective.
<2) The evolution in #1 would be taught within a God-center worldview reference. God's hand would be acknowledges when appropriate. I favored this worldview for my children along with a small reference to the areas in evolution which the theory does not well explain the events.
3) There are **small** groups of parents who would teach creationism. I don't agree with them, but, it's their right to do that. If the child really wants a career in science, their deficiency can be quick, inexpensively, and easily made up in the local community college.
Each one of these approaches has profoundly NON-nuertral religious consequences, and the content of the courses would vary between all three.
Do you object to the teaching of the theory of gravity, or the germ theory of infection?
I conclude that you are asking me this question to be belittling and snide.
But...Let's examine a group that does not teach the physics of gravity or the science of germ theory.
The Amish don't teach the physics of gravity or the science of germ theory, but they and their kids are thriving. Only about 50% of their children join the religion.
Amish children who do NOT join the religion do very well in the community. They own businesses and work in the professions and trades. Welfare, crime, and illegitimacy is nearly unknown. They do great in the community colleges and have NO problem whatsoever "socializing" or acculturation". Imaging that ! Not having been taught evolution and having an 8th grade education doesn't seem to hinder these kids at all.
No, I'm just not accepting the false dichotomies you enjoy creating. I don't accept your conclusion that teaching a scientific theory without reference to a divine being is "godlessness" any more than it is "godless" to teach kids the Periodic Table without reference to a divine being.
Do you object to the teaching of the theory of gravity, or the germ theory of infection?
I conclude that you are asking me this question to be belittling and snide.
I conclude that you are going to dodge the question.
The Amish don't teach the physics of gravity or the science of germ theory, but they and their kids are thriving.
And I was right- you did dodge the question, as usual.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.