Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design'
yahoo news ^

Posted on 12/20/2005 8:16:05 AM PST by GSlob

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-104 next last
To: WritetheNews
Biology class is for biology. Students should be taught science. Scientific theories make testable predictions about the world we live in.

There was plenty of speculation in our biology curriculum.

susie

51 posted on 12/20/2005 9:42:12 AM PST by brytlea (I'm not a conspiracy theorist....really.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

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?


52 posted on 12/20/2005 9:42:51 AM PST by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

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.


53 posted on 12/20/2005 9:44:34 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: blowfish

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.

susie


54 posted on 12/20/2005 9:46:10 AM PST by brytlea (I'm not a conspiracy theorist....really.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: jess35

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.
susie


55 posted on 12/20/2005 9:47:53 AM PST by brytlea (I'm not a conspiracy theorist....really.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: metmom
has much more scientific support than a lot of scientists give it credit for.

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....

56 posted on 12/20/2005 9:48:45 AM PST by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: WritetheNews
Understanding evolution is fundamental to science

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.

57 posted on 12/20/2005 9:50:35 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
I see nothing wrong with teaching evolution in science and having a theology course to teach ID.

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.

58 posted on 12/20/2005 9:50:46 AM PST by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: brytlea
I absolutely agree. It's not unusual to see reports of new discoveries in the fossil record and new discoveries in genetic research that cause biologists to revise and rethink portions on the evolutionary picture. It's quite exciting, especially with the major strides in genetic research these days.

I almost feel sad for IDers, who lack this kind of evidence and research; they can only look on from the sidelines....

59 posted on 12/20/2005 9:50:50 AM PST by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Understanding evolution is NOT fundamental to SCIENCE.

But rejecting evolution requires rejecting all of science, particularly physics.

Check out the current Kent Hovind thread with 1500+ posts.

60 posted on 12/20/2005 9:52:34 AM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

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.


61 posted on 12/20/2005 9:54:11 AM PST by BuglerTex (Thank God for our molten core and our large moon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: jess35

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.


62 posted on 12/20/2005 9:54:26 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

It's a legitimate question because you don't seem to understand the purpose of science.


63 posted on 12/20/2005 9:56:22 AM PST by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: blowfish

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!)
susie


64 posted on 12/20/2005 9:57:00 AM PST by brytlea (I'm not a conspiracy theorist....really.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: metmom

BWAHAHAHAHA!! No, seriously...I wasn't joking. Do you have any scientific evidence that backs up the Biblical creation account?


65 posted on 12/20/2005 9:57:46 AM PST by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: BuglerTex

I think God is certainly a scientist. ;)
susie


66 posted on 12/20/2005 9:57:49 AM PST by brytlea (I'm not a conspiracy theorist....really.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: jess35

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.
susie


67 posted on 12/20/2005 9:59:04 AM PST by brytlea (I'm not a conspiracy theorist....really.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

You're being fairly nasty yourself. I will take your complete refusal to answer my question as an inability to do so.


68 posted on 12/20/2005 10:01:15 AM PST by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: jess35

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.
susie


69 posted on 12/20/2005 10:04:32 AM PST by brytlea (I'm not a conspiracy theorist....really.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: jess35

I'll take the way you posted on this thread as your display of rude behavior.


70 posted on 12/20/2005 10:06:17 AM PST by wallcrawlr (Pray for the troops [all the troops here and abroad]: Success....and nothing less!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
"Because ID is really about money"
True. That's why, whenever I get bibled at, I answer "not a cent".
71 posted on 12/20/2005 10:06:26 AM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: right right

And then the slime will get to be a valedictorian.


72 posted on 12/20/2005 10:08:33 AM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

It should be written, "Bibled".


73 posted on 12/20/2005 10:31:03 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: GSlob
"Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district

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?

74 posted on 12/20/2005 10:34:36 AM PST by RightWhale (pas de lieu, Rhone que nous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Well, I'm 200% behind the judge on this one. ID is for the seminaries, sunday schools and the like.


75 posted on 12/20/2005 10:43:46 AM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: unlearner
"What matters to this nut is that the people who want ID openly express their faith. "
And a biology class in public school is not a proper place for their expressing it. There is no lack of suitable avenues - theology classes, comparative religion courses, seminaries, sunday schools and the like. Thus I would not call him a nut.
76 posted on 12/20/2005 10:47:21 AM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Why not - in a theology class.


77 posted on 12/20/2005 10:51:08 AM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Mogollon
Darwin's Black Box should be required reading for this judge. But then he is probably incapable of understanding it.

He should probably spend his time on a book that hasn't been shredded in its intellectual entirety by the author's scientific peers.

78 posted on 12/20/2005 10:51:22 AM PST by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

Why dignify it? torahed, quraned, book of mormon'ed and so on - still not a cent.


79 posted on 12/20/2005 10:54:05 AM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

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
School District.

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.


80 posted on 12/20/2005 11:00:34 AM PST by RightWhale (pas de lieu, Rhone que nous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

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.


81 posted on 12/20/2005 11:05:29 AM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

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.


82 posted on 12/20/2005 11:08:29 AM PST by unlearner (You will never come to know that which you do not know until you first know that you do not know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

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.


83 posted on 12/20/2005 11:11:17 AM PST by RightWhale (pas de lieu, Rhone que nous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr; brytlea
Thanks for the ping wallcrawlr but Wolf will disengage (bug out) for this for now.

I as you, came for dialog etc, but thats not what we find coming from the pseudo-intellectuals as we see here.

Wolf does not like that, and ends up being as one Christian freepmailed "not any better than they are" I can understand how he might say that although I think its a matter of degree.

Well take care.

Wolf
84 posted on 12/20/2005 11:32:41 AM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Apparently many think learning is simply giving out information.
susie


85 posted on 12/20/2005 11:51:24 AM PST by brytlea (I'm not a conspiracy theorist....really.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: brytlea
Sorry about that, I should have said: Apparently many think teaching is simply giving out information.

Apologies, I'm doing too many things at once!

Merry Christmas to everyone, even those I disagree with. :)

susie

86 posted on 12/20/2005 11:53:41 AM PST by brytlea (I'm not a conspiracy theorist....really.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: unlearner

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.


87 posted on 12/20/2005 12:57:05 PM PST by johnnyb_61820
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: unlearner

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.


88 posted on 12/20/2005 1:04:14 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

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.


89 posted on 12/20/2005 2:09:44 PM PST by RightWhale (pas de lieu, Rhone que nous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: unlearner

"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.


90 posted on 12/20/2005 4:20:28 PM PST by wolf78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

Judge John Jones III, a Republican, was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002.


91 posted on 12/20/2005 4:25:56 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Yes, and he should have ordered the poor bastards formerly of Dover School Board to evolve. High time, too.


92 posted on 12/20/2005 4:45:46 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
Then the least they could do for the parents of children, is create an Evolution-opt out class. One biology class without the teaching of evolution... this IS possible.

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

:)

93 posted on 12/20/2005 5:05:10 PM PST by CourtneyLeigh (Why can't all of America be Commonwealth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wolf78
You know,,, the "zealot" in me would love for the whole world to teach the Biblical ID theory. Yet I am refreshingly surprised by your post.

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!

94 posted on 12/20/2005 5:24:02 PM PST by CourtneyLeigh (Why can't all of America be Commonwealth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: johnnyb_61820

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.


95 posted on 12/20/2005 5:24:34 PM PST by unlearner (You will never come to know that which you do not know until you first know that you do not know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: GSlob
"ID is not scientific, per court decision and per common logic."

Science is not determined by judges or "common logic". Most people believe in some form of creationism. That is "common".

Science is defined by historical use within the philosophy of science.

"Where would be the life origins of 'intelligent designer'? It is called 'reductio ad infinitum' fallacy."

Irrelevant. That's like saying that evolution is unscientific because it does not explain where life comes from.

ID offers a testable, falsifiable hypothesis that living things can only be arise from nonliving things through intelligent intervention.
96 posted on 12/20/2005 5:44:06 PM PST by unlearner (You will never come to know that which you do not know until you first know that you do not know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: unlearner

Please see a doctor.


97 posted on 12/20/2005 6:06:26 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

A snappy comeback does not represent a credible argument against my assertions.


98 posted on 12/20/2005 6:35:57 PM PST by unlearner (You will never come to know that which you do not know until you first know that you do not know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

Judge ruled against a strawman, not ID. It was obvious from his bizarre ruling.


99 posted on 12/20/2005 7:14:19 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

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.


100 posted on 12/20/2005 7:25:32 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-104 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson