Skip to comments.Intelligent Design case decided - Dover, Pennsylvania, School Board loses [Fox News Alert]
Posted on 12/20/2005 7:54:38 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
click here to read article
"So now it is going to be unlawful to read a classroom as statement that their is some problems with ToE"
Oh, my. "their is some problems, " eh? I'll say there are some problems, and they aren't with evolution. Perhaps we need better instruction in English in our schools.
Those who think creation precludes evolution can check back here also.
Shall we debate here what is and what is not 'religion'? Resolved; a statement of faith, "I believe", is sufficient to establish a religion.
I believe in the precision and accuracy of my perception of the universe.
If you try and believe that evolution and Christianity are compatible how do you explain the genealogy in Matthew that goes back all the way to Adam? If it is not literal history it would be a lie and thus the bible could be full of lies. It says Adam and Eve were the first humans but I guess it would be silly to trace it back before adam and include the monkees huh?
Not sure how it would eviscerate Genesis being literal history though. Maybe you could help me on that one.
I guess the ID/Creationism nightmare is coming true. Actual scientific theories based on facts will be taught in the science classroom.
I agree, but he "decided" in the legal sense, in his "decision."
> BTW ,Your post is moronic.
Watch your language, please.
I applaud the decision.
Then again, the literal interpretation of Genesis is already eviscerated by the scientific evidence. My point being that just because a God is proven to exist would hardly make the overwhelming evidence supporting the theory of evolution vanish. It would merely indicate that the God which exists is some God other than the one you imagine to exist.
This is a 70-zip blowout.
How is that?
By MARTHA RAFFAELE, AP Education Writer 11 minutes ago
"Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.
The Dover Area School Board violated the Constitution when it ordered that its biology curriculum must include "intelligent design," the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled Tuesday.
The school board policy, adopted in October 2004, was believed to have been the first of its kind in the nation.
"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy," Jones wrote. "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."
The board's attorneys said members sought to improve science education by exposing students to alternatives to Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection causing gradual changes over time; intelligent-design proponents argue that it cannot fully explain the existence of complex life forms.
The plaintiffs argued that intelligent design amounts to a secular repackaging of creationism, which the courts have already ruled cannot be taught in public schools.
The Dover policy required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement said Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook, "Of Pandas and People," for more information.
Jones said advocates of intelligent design "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors" and that he didn't believe the concept shouldn't be studied and discussed.
"Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom," he wrote.
The dispute is the latest chapter in a long-running debate over the teaching of evolution dating back to the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, in which Tennessee biology teacher John T. Scopes was fined $100 for violating a state law that forbade teaching evolution. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed his conviction on the narrow ground that only a jury trial could impose a fine exceeding $50, and the law was repealed in 1967.
Jones heard arguments in the fall during a six-week trial in which expert witnesses for each side debated intelligent design's scientific merits. Other witnesses, including current and former school board members, disagreed over whether creationism was discussed in board meetings months before the curriculum change was adopted.
The controversy also divided the community and galvanized voters to oust eight incumbent school board members who supported the policy in the Nov. 8 school board election. They were replaced by a slate of eight opponents who pledged to remove intelligent design from the science curriculum.
The case is among at least a handful that have focused new attention on the teaching of evolution in the nation's schools.
Earlier this month, a federal appeals court in Georgia heard arguments over whether evolution disclaimer stickers placed in a school system's biology textbooks were unconstitutional. A federal judge in January ordered Cobb County school officials to immediately remove the stickers, which called evolution a theory, not a fact.
In November, state education officials in Kansas adopted new classroom science standards that call the theory of evolution into question.
Martha Raffaele covers education for The Associated Press in Harrisburg.
Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
I don't know about Bio 101, but I think you just flunked Evolutionary Theory 101.
Easy. It's mythology, no better or worse than the Greek, Roman, Norse or Egyptian variety.
Emphasis mine. On to Kansas!
Very slow to load, for obvious reasons.
I have it. Want me to post it on a mirror?
I have it. Want me to post it on a mirror?
Sorry, I didn't phrase myself well. From a scientific standpoint Genesis as literal history has already been gutted, sliced, diced, and incinerated. My actual point was that proving a God exists would hardly contradict the evidence in support of evolution. It would merely indicate that the God which exists is not the one you and others who take Genesis literally imagine to exist.
I am pretty ignorant when it comes to the scientific experiments that have been conducted on evolution.
Could someone please describe for me the parameters of the scientific experiments that have been conducted that prove evolution theory to be correct (i.e., dependent variable, independent variable, controls for internal validity, external validity, etc.).
Or, could you direct me to a source that describes these things? Thanks in advance.
And back to you as well my friend. :-)
Way cool. :-)
Ditto...great decision. Intelligent decision.
No, it is not. Many religious people think that Evolution was the means by which God created Man.
Please, you might not agree with Catholicism, but surely you aren't going to tell me that the Pope is not religious, are you? Are you then saying that Catholicism is not a religion?
Yeah, that's right. In "survival of the fittest", it's totally random what's fit, and what's not.
My post was about his comments, not the case!
As far as "watching my language" take it up with the mods!
They need a good laugh!
1. "Evolution is predicated upon total randomness."
Not really. Suvival of the fittest may appear random (and to any given member of a population it would effectively be so), but if a condition that favored one trait over the another was put into effect by an outside force (say, like God sending an asteroid, or a farmer breeding a certain color plant, for example) it would be "directed" evolution, and not random at all.
2. "Miller and Urey origin of life needs no procreator - it was a random event (even though their work has been proven to be totally false)."
This is a bit of a red herring. Darwin's book was called "On the Origin of Species." His theory starts with existing life and delves not into the origin of life.
3. "Of course Darwinism is incompatible with religion. It is secular by design. No God is needed in their world. In fact a God, if proven, would eviscerate their theory."
Well, you disagree with the Roman Catholic Church (which is a fair thing to do; I do often, as well).
But certainly, this Chistian sees a God needed in a world whose present state was brought about by evolution. God made the world and the natural laws, which result in evolution, just as God designed the universe to do.
Science merely describes WHAT and HOW God did what He did. It does not delve into WHY.
It is no more incompatible with a creator than looking to see how yeast makes bread rise is incompatible with there being a baker of bread.
As oft-repeated similar example, scientists have shown that the Red Sea parts very dramatically when the tide is just so, the moon just so, water level just so, and wind blowing from the East at a certain speed.
Religious folk attack it as blasphemy.
Secularist hold it up as evidence that Moses performed no miracle.
A religious scientist says, "Wow. The miracle was in the timing of doing that just as Moses showed up and stopping just as the last Jew finished crossing."
It is the same with evolution. It is merely a glimpse of God's wonderful universe.
Later. Today we party. Tomorrow we teach.
Of course it's possible. I can talk to an architect concerning his designs and intentions. Has anyone had an interview with the Designer?
Which part is Mythology? Jesus or everything written in the bible?
So if archeologists discovered many of the sites, names and history that was written in the bible would that just make it a coincidence? I think some of the stories are hard to believe but it is much harder to believe that something came from nothing.
This is what the most brilliant theologian (so far as I'm concerned) in the history of Christianity said about 1800 years ago:
Now what person of intelligence will believe that the first and the second and the third day and the evening and the morning existed without the sun and moon and stars? And that the first day, if we may so call it, was even without a heaven? And who is so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, "planted a paradise eastward in Eden," and set in it a visible and palpable "tree of life," of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life; and again that one could partake of "good and evil" by masticating the fruit taken from the tree of that name? And when God is said to "walk in the paradise in the cool of the day" and Adam to hide himself behind a tree, I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history and not through actual events.
--Origen, On First Principles, Book IV, Chapter 3, Section 1
If he could figure it out from the state of science back in the Roman era, I see no reason why anyone should have a problem with it today.
That would be very useful.
Can I post a spoiler from the conclusion? ;)
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Boards ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
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.
To be sure, Darwins theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. 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.
With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.
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. 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 ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Boards 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.
And having read this, surely ID probably DOES deserve mention in a biology class, and it should be given all the time it is due, say, 1 to 5 minutes, and then left at that.
When it is God's hand which is holding atoms together, which is the reason God belongs in the science classroom.
Yes, but God is not a testable theory. Science does not seek to prove or disprove God. God is beyond our small understanding of the universe. And science is a tool that we use to probe and understand our tiny corner of God's universe. That's all it is; it is not a commentary on the nature or existence of God. And, secondly, why on earth would you want public school teachers teaching religion to your kids? I sure as heck don't.
Everything written in the Bible? No. Genesis? Yes. When they dig up the bones of Adam and the ruins of Eden, I'll be proven wrong.
Thanks for the link PH!
Here's a mirror:
Thanks for the ping!
Evolution is a religion...
To believe that garbage as FACT takes a whole new level of idiocy...
Sorry for mixing names. Who are the people who deal with the origins of life? I thought evoltion theory went all the way from the origin of the universe until today.
radical extremists lose, scientists win...
A simple idea which some (most?) on FreeRepublic fail to comprehend. A former tagline of mine comes to mind, somewhat edited "Just because we (science) are not perfect, does not mean we are not good."
Have you read any of the treatises on ID? Highly scientific (even if you disagree with their premise and conclusion) and do not belong on the "Religious" shelves at the bookstores.
Thanks for the mirror posting. I've got it downloaded on my hard drive now. This is big. Very big.