Skip to comments.Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design'
Posted on 12/20/2005 8:16:05 AM PST by GSlob
click here to read article
There was plenty of speculation in our biology curriculum.
susie, if you are a biology teacher, why are you playing this stupid, "but we must explore the options" crap? Do you encourage little Johnny and Suzie to explore the flying spaghetti monster story of creation as well?
That's right and when their brainwashed, Christian, creationists daughter gets offered a possibility of entering the university's honors program at the local private, secular big name university, they don't know what to do with it.
There is plenty of evidence of evolution. There is no proof. A good scientist should be open to new evidence and follow where it might lead. And in fact, that has happened over the years with evolutionary theory.
I'm not even going to bother answering your question as long as it is framed in insults. I will only say that just because someone's views don't line up with yours does not mean their views are stupid.
No kidding. Can you point us towards actual SCIENTIFIC studies that show the validity of the Biblical creation story?
Anxiously awaiting your scientific, peer reviewed, evidence....
Understanding evolution is NOT fundamental to SCIENCE. There are many areas of science where evolution never even comes into play. Understanding the scientific method is fundamental to science and can be applied to the ToE but the ToE is not required to practice other branches of science.
Proponents of ID have no desire to see it taught in a theology class. They demand that it be taught as science. That's what the fuss is all about.
I almost feel sad for IDers, who lack this kind of evidence and research; they can only look on from the sidelines....
But rejecting evolution requires rejecting all of science, particularly physics.
Check out the current Kent Hovind thread with 1500+ posts.
Tough job, thanks for staying the course. I just think that it should be fair to point out the extreme improbability of the formation of this planet at this time and of the abruptness of the evolution or whatever that got us to the here and now.
Let science be taught, the more we know, the more we understand God's Work.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning...Supported by the big bang theory. There was a beginning. (Remember the meltdown when that was first proposed over the staedy state theory? Are you old enough?) Reminds me of the current reaction to ID.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was formless....fits with the scientific theory of solar syatem formation.
Gen 1:2 ...and void... no life yet
Gen 1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light...." A star has to reach a certain mass in order for it to ignite.
Now a break...-creation took time; supported by science.
-creation happened in a certain order; very similar to that which is supported by the ToE.
Gen 1:11&12 The earth brought forth vegetation. See the thread: "Shaped from clay [origin of life]"?
Gen 1:20 Then God said, "Let the waters teems with swarms of living creatures...." Life arose in the seas.
Gen 1:24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind..." Clay again, also with man.
Also note that it was fish first, then sea creatures and birds, then mammals, and finally man.
I don't see anything in the creation account that contradicts current scientific theories.
It's a legitimate question because you don't seem to understand the purpose of science.
It is astounding to me how far knowledge on something like genetics has come since I took HS biology. It seems we were in the dark ages. It is amazing.
But, some things are to be taken on faith (and no, they aren't science). As I said, I am not very literal on the creation, because I cannot imagine God explaining to Moses about big bangs and such. And I'm also sure that God has a fabulous library I will get to spend the rest of eternity in! (I hope we don't just know everything all at once, I want to spend time learning it!)
BWAHAHAHAHA!! No, seriously...I wasn't joking. Do you have any scientific evidence that backs up the Biblical creation account?
I think God is certainly a scientist. ;)
You need to grow up and learn how to phrase questions in a civil debate. If you are looking to just make people angry, then you're on the right track. If you're trying to actually learn something (or get a real answer to a question) your method needs a little work.
You're being fairly nasty yourself. I will take your complete refusal to answer my question as an inability to do so.
I don't care what you take it for. I dealt with adolescents day in and day out, and I learned to not bother to answer a question that did not want an answer. If you think this is nasty you probably should avoid the internet, however.
I'll take the way you posted on this thread as your display of rude behavior.
And then the slime will get to be a valedictorian.
It should be written, "Bibled".
What if one of the pupils innocently asks about it in class? Can the teacher allow the topic in a class project or individual project?
Well, I'm 200% behind the judge on this one. ID is for the seminaries, sunday schools and the like.
Why not - in a theology class.
He should probably spend his time on a book that hasn't been shredded in its intellectual entirety by the author's scientific peers.
Why dignify it? torahed, quraned, book of mormon'ed and so on - still not a cent.
Not in that school district, by those people:
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that
Defendants ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, § 3 of
the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined
from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area
3. Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with the
Court and serve on Defendants, their claim for damages and a verified
statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim entitlement.
Defendants shall have the right to object to any such fees and costs to
the extent provided in the applicable statutes and court rules.
Good. So your hypothetical pupil will have to find a theology class outside of Dover School District sphere. Since any church there would be only too happy to accommodate such a pupil in its sunday classes, I do not see much inconvenience. But then, I'm an atheist.
The proponents of ID being religiously motivated has nothing to do with whether or not it is scientific.
Evolution as an explanation of the multitude of species begs the question of origin of life such that most young students who have been exposed to it think it covers the issue of origins.
ID contains the only current scientific hypothesis for the origin of life.
Yeah, the decision applies to the defendants and the school district. Another school district and other persons could probably go ahead with agitating for ID.
Apparently many think learning is simply giving out information.
Apologies, I'm doing too many things at once!
Merry Christmas to everyone, even those I disagree with. :)
Don't be too cocky here. The Dover group is actually fairly lucky that the judge didn't throw them in jail. It seems that they _lied_ early on in the case about their motivations, and some factual matters.
I would _strongly urge_ ID people to not use this case as a jumping board, precisely because we cannot be tied to people who lie to promote their cause. I have full confidence in ID, as well as Creationism, but I have to agree with this judge that the Dover board was engaged in some fishy business with regards to this suit.
ID is not scientific, per court decision and per common logic. Where would be the life origins of "intelligent designer"? It is called "reductio ad infinitum" fallacy.
Hah! If learning is only going over what has already passed into the body of knowledge, then schools are seats of learning. Schools are libraries first and foremost, but at some point a student will have drained the books and will be on his own--then learning (not just individual bringing up to speed, but advancement of mankind) begins.
"Evolution as an explanation of the multitude of species begs the question of origin of life such that most young students who have been exposed to it think it covers the issue of origins."
And that is exactly the point where a good Biology teacher should step in and explain that science cannot provide a REASON for evolutionary mechanisms and that the respective student should ask his or her parents about that.
Science is lot like "connect the dots" - it provides a hypothesis about what the lines in the picture might look like. What it does not provide is a statement about the painter or his intentions.
Therefore it is essential to point out to all students before discussing evolution that the theory of evolution is no more than the sum of certain mechanisms, such as natural selection - the same way calculus is a set of mathematic tools.
A teacher who tries to prove God's existence through evolution (which is basically what ID does) is the same type of fool as a teacher with a radical atheist agenda who tries to prove that God does not exist by quoting Darwin.
Yes, I am in favor of teaching evolution in schools. No, I'm firmly against presenting ID in Biology classes. But I also believe that every single teacher should be instructed, if a student should ask WHY there's evolution, to reply along the lines of: "That is not a question science can answer. Science doesn't cover the "why". You should discuss that with your parents instead!".
If every teacher acted thus - there would be no problem whatsoever with Darwin and the theory of evolution. That is exactly the modus operandi we should strive for - and NOT teaching ID in schools.
To believe the only motive for advocating ID in schools was to present an "alternative explanation", is naive. No such thing is needed. Purpose is no scientific category. Or does any of you really think a Physics teacher should discuss WHY such a thing as nuclear fission exists. To kill all infidels? Or should we also teach animal-rights-activist bullcrap in Biology, just because it is an alternative view?
And that is also why the judge is right about the discussion being dishonest.
Judge John Jones III, a Republican, was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002.
Yes, and he should have ordered the poor bastards formerly of Dover School Board to evolve. High time, too.
But that would take to much "real" work on behalf of some "walking, talking, eating primate" to come up with scientific Facts and observations to properly explain biology! LOL
I've always believed that Evolution is based on Hypothesis with a lack of proper observation (that would be documented through out the ages).
Whereas, If I totally rely on historical writings/documentaries, I could (if needed) properly support all written observations in the Bible.
Thus being said, I too agree that (1) If there is going to be a public School system, they should teach a simple line of basics: Science can be taught thru Physics, Chemistry, biology, health, anatomy and much more without ever bringing up the "Evolution Theory"... One may however be inclined to use the "term" evolved [Etymology: Latin evolvere to unroll, from].
I also believe (2) This is why Homeschooling should be more accurately supported by all people.. because that is where parents need to be encouraged to answer those questions on Evolution vs Creation. If parents are encouraged to Home school their children (even if it's after public school), maybe then we can pull the responsibility of Theorism Learning off the shoulders of our paid teachers!?
Purpose is no scientific category
Without insult to your individual intellect, I couldn't have said it better. You are So right with that statement!
You might be right about the defendants, but I still think the judge allowed his personal anti religious bias effect his judicial conduct.
The religious motives of the defendants should not have been a subject of discussion.
The comments of the judge look to me very hateful toward religious faith in general.
Please see a doctor.
A snappy comeback does not represent a credible argument against my assertions.
Judge ruled against a strawman, not ID. It was obvious from his bizarre ruling.
Have you read the whole ruling [available online]? I have, and I do not consider his ruling bizarre in the least. Quite the opposite, I consider it right and proper. If anything, by going into a long consideration of the nature and history of ID and concluding that whatever else it might be, science it is not, the judge did yeoman's work for other judges who might have to sort out future cases. ID belongs in a seminary, or in a sunday school. It has no place in the science class of a public school.