Court rules against Intelligent Design in Dover, PA - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

rsl12 · 12-20-2005, 01:51 PM

I'll give the BBC link, since it's concise:

Quote:

A court in the US has ruled against the teaching of "intelligent design" alongside Darwin's theory of evolution.

A group of parents in the Pennsylvania town of Dover had taken the school board to court for demanding biology classes not teach evolution as fact.

The authorities wanted to introduce the idea that Earth's life was too complicated to have evolved on its own.

Judge John Jones ruled the school board had violated the constitutional ban on teaching religion in public schools.

The 11 parents who brought the case argued that teaching intelligent design (ID) was effectively teaching creationism, which is banned.

We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board's real purpose, which was to promote religion
Judge John Jones

They complained that ID - which argues life must have been helped to develop by an unseen power - is tantamount to religious education.

The separation of church and state is enshrined in the US constitution.

The school board argued they had sought to improve science education by exposing pupils to alternatives to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

But Judge Jones said he had determined that ID was not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".

In a 139-page written ruling, the judge said: "Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

He accused school board members of disguising their true motives for introducing the ID policy.

"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom," he said.

He banned any future implementation of the policy in Dover schools.

The case, the first of its kind, sets an important precedent in a country where several states have adopted the teaching of ID, reports the BBC's James Coomerasamy in Washington.

Ironically, he adds, it is a somewhat academic ruling in the Dover area since parents there voted last month to replace the school board members who brought in the policy.

That move provoked US TV evangelist Pat Robertson to warn the town was invoking the wrath of God.

A lawyer for the parents said the ruling was a "real vindication" for those families who challenged the school board.

I started going through the actual opinion ...it's pretty interesting reading. Particularly this part where the judge skewers the board members who voted 'yes' for the ID statement for not knowing anything about ID before voting:

Quote:

In fact, one unfortunate theme in this case is the striking ignorance concerning the concept of ID amongst Board members. Conspicuously, Board
members who voted for the curriculum change testified at trial that they had utterly no grasp of ID. To illustrate, consider that Geesey testified she did not understand the substance of the curriculum change, yet she voted for it. Moreover, as she indicated on multiple occasions, in voting for the curriculum change, Geesy deferred completely
to Bonsell and Buckingham.

Second, Buckingham, Chair of the Curriculum Committee at the time, admitted that he had no basis to know whether ID amounted to good science as of the time of his first deposition, which was two and a half months after the ID Policy was approved, yet he voted for the curriculum change.

Third, Cleaver voted for the curriculum change despite the teachers’ objections, based upon assurances from Bonsell. Cleaver admittedly knew nothing about ID, including the words comprising the phrase, as she consistently referred to ID as “intelligence design” throughout her testimony. In addition, Cleaver was bereft of any understanding of Pandas except that Spahr had said it was not a good science book which should not be used in high school. In addition, Superintendent Nilsen’s entire understanding of ID was that “evolution has a design.”

Despite this collective failure to understand the concept of ID, which six Board members nonetheless felt was appropriate to add to ninth grade biology class to improve science education, the Board never heard from any person or organization with scientific expertise about the curriculum change, save for consistent but unwelcome advices from the District’s science teachers who uniformly opposed the change. In disregarding the teachers’ views, the Board ignored undeviating opposition to the curriculum change by the one resource with scientific expertise immediately at its disposal.
The only outside organizations which the Board consulted prior to the vote were the Discovery Institute and TMLC, and it is clear that the purpose of these contacts was to obtain legal advice, as opposed to science education information. The Board received no materials, other than Pandas, to assist them in making their vote. Nor did anyone
on the Board or in the administration ever contact the NAS, the AAAS, the National Science Teachers’ Association, the National Association of Biology
Teachers, or any other organization for information about ID or science education before or after voting for the curriculum change. While there is no requirement that a school board contact any of
the afore-referenced organizations prior to enacting a curriculum change, in this case a simple glance at any one of their websites for additional information about ID and any potential it may have to improve science education would have provided helpful information to Board members who admittedly had no comprehension whatsoever of ID. As Dr. Alters’ expert testimony demonstrated,
all of these organizations have information about teaching evolution readily available on the internet and they include statements opposing the teaching of ID.

Kudos to the judge! I hope he's not going to be branded as an activist.

stevie667 · 12-20-2005, 02:27 PM

I've got a biology teacher who believes in ID, fortunatly she also keeps this to herself and teaches evolution, but if they tried to teach this to kids as part of the ciriculum, it would seriously fudge up their minds.

Good decision.

rsl12 · 12-20-2005, 02:55 PM

A bit more--the ruling contains, starting on page 64, a discussion of whether ID is or isn't science. The ruling is that ID is not science, because it fails three criteria, any of which would be sufficient to mark its doom: "(1)
ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting
supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community"

I'm still reading through, but I think the 1st argument is flawed. I'll quote some of it.

Quote:

Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. (5:28 (Pennock)). Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea’s worth. (9:21-22 (Haught); 1:63 (Miller)). In deliberately omitting theological or “ultimate” explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not consider issues of “meaning” and “purpose” in the world. While supernatural explanations may
be important and have merit, they are not part of science...Methodological naturalism is a “ground rule” of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based
upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify.

This may have been a good definition in the 16th and 17th centuries, but I don't think it's a good one today. What was meant by "looking for 'natural' explanations" is looking for explanations that didn't involve invoking the words 'because God...'. Back when science stood in such stark contrast to religious authority, making this distinction was probably very important. But these days, I don't think it's really a suitable description of science. A much better definition comes from the ruling:

Quote:

{The National Academy of Science} is in agreement that science is
limited to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data: “Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data – the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science.”

I think this is a much better definition. It's not that science actively avoids explanation involving God--it's that science is only looking at theories that are potentially confirmable through observation. The judge seems to get confused in the distinction between these two points--he equates 'natural' with 'testable' and 'supernatural' with 'untestable.'

Coppertop · 12-20-2005, 03:13 PM

Amen.

Damn minimum letter count.

kutulu · 12-20-2005, 03:19 PM

Good news for those who favor science over mythology.

snowy · 12-20-2005, 03:21 PM

rsl, thank you for sharing parts of the opinion; now I am compelled to read it.

I am glad the judge showed understanding and thought in delivering his ruling. That, above all else, pleases me most.

Elphaba · 12-20-2005, 04:08 PM

Thanks for sharing that with us, rsl12. I suspect that the ID enthusiasts will appeal this ruling all the way to SCOTUS, if they can.

stevie667 · 12-20-2005, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Thanks for sharing that with us, rsl12. I suspect that the ID enthusiasts will appeal this ruling all the way to SCOTUS, if they can.

I read over that quickly and thought you said "all the way to SCROTUM"

flat5 · 12-20-2005, 05:01 PM

The trial never brought up the issue of UnIntelligent Design

analog · 12-20-2005, 08:58 PM

One time I had to listen to some empty-headed nitwit drone on for minutes about how intelligent design should be taught in schools. My first comment was "you just want them to teach creationism, don't abuse the term 'intelligent design' when that's not what you mean, and we all know it." This sent her into a manic fit of yelling, much to the amusement of everyone present who wasn't on her side. Then I said, "and what about the words themselves... 'intelligent design'... how do you know God did all that on purpose? Maybe he just makes it up as he goes along- or maybe he's kinda dumb. You can't even prove He exists, but you're basing your whole argument on the fact that he's also a genius."

Well. That was one of the funniest conversations I've ever been in where the whole point was to ridicule someone. Suffice to say, she went apeshit on me. One of my friends has asthma, i thought he was going to die because he was laughing so hard he gave himself an attack and sat down puffing on his inhaler for a few minutes.

Willravel · 12-20-2005, 09:12 PM

Thank God.

JumpinJesus · 12-20-2005, 09:18 PM

I'm glad to hear some sense coming out of this. I wonder how long proponents of ID will continue to insist their "theory" is not based on Creationism.

I'd post more, but I'm in the midst of a war on christmas to which I must get back.

martinguerre · 12-20-2005, 09:31 PM

the funniest thing of it all is that life doesn't look very smart, so far as we can judge that.

there are lots of inefficiencies, redundancies, and oddities in how life is designed. c'mon...appendixes just aren't intelligent in human beings.

flstf · 12-20-2005, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Thank God.

Gotta love the irony.

shakran · 12-20-2005, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

the funniest thing of it all is that life doesn't look very smart, so far as we can judge that.

there are lots of inefficiencies, redundancies, and oddities in how life is designed. c'mon...appendixes just aren't intelligent in human beings.

Plus the fact that this "can't create complexity with evolution" BS they're spewing shows that they failed the evolution section of their own highschool bio class. Of course you can create complexity. The IDiots are approaching evolution as though one day an amoeba sat (er. . squished?) down and said "Hey! I think I'll evolve into a lizard!."

If you realize that a single celled organism with a genetic mutation might divide and become a multi-celled organism, then you can easilly accept that complexity can evolve. After all, a human is nothing but a multi-celled organism that is the result of kajillions of years of slow, steady, tiny generational changes. When those changes helped an organism survive, they were passed on to the kids. When those changes made it harder to survive, the organism got eaten and didn't have any kids to pass them on to.

abaya · 12-20-2005, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

there are lots of inefficiencies, redundancies, and oddities in how life is designed. c'mon...appendixes just aren't intelligent in human beings.

I believe it was Richard Dawkins ("The Selfish Gene" author and powerhouse for evolution) who pointed out how badly "designed" the human eye was. If it was indeed designed, it was not done so intelligently...

it is a hugely inefficient mechanism that has obviously evolved in fits and starts.

Anyway, having lived in PA for the last 2+ years I was feeling mighty ashamed of Dover when they voted for ID. So I was glad to hear that the judge in Harrisburg was intelligent enough (and objective; apparently he is a churchgoer himself) to make this kind of decision and vindicate PA.

(not to mention the entire community of Dover, who all but replaced the old school board in the last elections!)

billege · 12-20-2005, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

I'm glad to hear some sense coming out of this. I wonder how long proponents of ID will continue to insist their "theory" is not based on Creationism.

I'd post more, but I'm in the midst of a war on christmas to which I must get back.

lol, thanks. That was funny as hell.

Seriously, I can't be happier about this.

If the religious peeps really feel a need to get thier "theory" out there, fine, then they need to sponsor a religious/phiosophy class where kids can learn about how ALL the different religions belive life came to be. But, they don't want that, because it wouldn't push thier myth ahead of all the other ones.

I'm quite glad someone doesn't want the US to become Jesusland.

Zyr · 12-21-2005, 01:54 AM

I have no problem with the idea of creationism, but damnit, it's not science. Good on them.

stevie667 · 12-21-2005, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

I believe it was Richard Dawkins ("The Selfish Gene" author and powerhouse for evolution) who pointed out how badly "designed" the human eye was. If it was indeed designed, it was not done so intelligently...

it is a hugely inefficient mechanism that has obviously evolved in fits and starts.

I'm reading that book now, i like his views on things

When people see all these species pootling around doing their thang, what they fail to recognise that for every single creature, there are probably 10 trillion others that have died because their genes made them vunerable in some way, and they snuffed it.

kutulu · 12-21-2005, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billege

If the religious peeps really feel a need to get thier "theory" out there, fine, then they need to sponsor a religious/phiosophy class where kids can learn about how ALL the different religions belive life came to be. But, they don't want that, because it wouldn't push thier myth ahead of all the other ones.

The one thing I have to keep telling myself (and it is very hard at times) is that this isn't about religion vs. non-religion. It's about hardcore fundies vs. rational people.

The truth about evolution is that it has never been about eliminating God from creation. It is only about using only the available tools and evidence in an attempt to explain natural phenomena. Most religious people do not have problems with evolution. Even Catholic high schools regularly teach evolution.

Jinn · 12-21-2005, 08:42 AM

Quote:

It's not that science actively avoids explanation involving God--it's that science is only looking at theories that are potentially confirmable through observation. The judge seems to get confused in the distinction between these two points--he equates 'natural' with 'testable' and 'supernatural' with 'untestable.'

There's no confusion. Supernatural things ARE untestable. Since supernatural means "not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws" it cannot be tested. Since it cannot be tested, it is untestable. While I agree that it was bad form (semantics) to phrase it how he did, they're interchangable. In order to create confirmable theories, we must explicitly reject supernatural explanations.

rsl12 · 12-21-2005, 08:49 AM

JinnKai, may I refer you to the Amazing Randi's Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge. Though most applicants drop out early in the process, a few have actually gone through to the testing stage:

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.04.04/news15.html

Not all supernatural claims are untestable.

Elphaba · 12-21-2005, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevie667

I read over that quickly and thought you said "all the way to SCROTUM"

Heh, I think it's already made it there.

Ustwo · 12-21-2005, 12:56 PM

As someone who has a degree in evolutionary biology and has given talks AGAINST ID (and one of my most fun moments in biology was when I was cornered in a hotel room with 5 intervarsity christians trying to use ID to convert me) there is an aspect of this I don't like.

I don't like judges deciding what gets taught. This doesn't seem like what should go to the courts. I do think the judge made the right choice, but it could have just as easily been the wrong one.

Bill O'Rights · 12-21-2005, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I don't like judges deciding what gets taught. This doesn't seem like what should go to the courts. I do think the judge made the right choice, but it could have just as easily been the wrong one.

Not arguing with you because, quite frankly, you're right. (Ow...that hurt just a little bit) It could just as easily have been the wrong choice. But, who then, gets to decide? Aparently, the local school board cannot be entrusted with it. (even though the good citizens of Dover saw fit to oust most of them from office)

kutulu · 12-21-2005, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I don't like judges deciding what gets taught. This doesn't seem like what should go to the courts. I do think the judge made the right choice, but it could have just as easily been the wrong one.

True, but what other courses of action were available to the public at the time?

frogza · 12-21-2005, 03:04 PM

For me these things always come back to the same answer. If parents want their children to believe or disbelieve in any idea or faith they must teach it at home. Public school is to teach people how to think, how to observe the world and to provide the basic tools needed to come to intelligent conclusions. Too often now parents are sending there children to school to have them taught what to think instead of how to think.

kutulu · 12-21-2005, 03:12 PM

That's all because we have so many right wing wackos out there saying that all schools are tools for indoctrinating our children into liberal society

SirLance · 12-21-2005, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Thanks for sharing that with us, rsl12. I suspect that the ID enthusiasts will appeal this ruling all the way to SCOTUS, if they can.

Only the school board has standing to appeal, and they won't because the ones who supported the curriculum change were voted off the board.

One wonders what they were thinking. ID is just creationism in a new wrapper. Yes, I believe God exists, that God created the universe, and that God loves us, and wishes to redeem us and have us with him. I would tell anyone who would listen that faith in God is the way to eternal life, but it would be completely irresponsible to package my religious beliefs as science in an effort to convince others. The gospel stands on its own merit. You either believe, or you don't.

It is true that evolution speaks to the origin of species, and not the origin of life. It is true (but I think unlikely) that evolution could be disproved, because that is the nature of science. How can ID be tested? If you wanted to present things in a theology or philosophy class about the purpose and meaning of life, and any supernatural origins it might have, then fine, do that in a theology or philosophy class. Don't present it as science in a science class, because it ISN'T science and doesn't belong in a science class.

And, when your SCIENCE TEACHERS tell you it doesn't belong there, perhaps you should listen to them. Or at least get an opinion from someone who actually knows something about science! What a group of morons!

maximusveritas · 12-21-2005, 07:04 PM

It's interesting that every single reply in this thread agreed with the court's ruling. Most polls I've seen show that half of the country supports the teaching of intelligent design and/or creationism in public schools. I know TFP and the internet in general tend to be more science-oriented, but It makes you wonder about that other half of the country.

flstf · 12-21-2005, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I don't like judges deciding what gets taught. This doesn't seem like what should go to the courts. I do think the judge made the right choice, but it could have just as easily been the wrong one.

I agree. Those of us who disagree with the teaching of ID in science class may have dodged a bullet. I imagine there are many judges (maybe a majority of them) who would rule the other way.

meembo · 12-21-2005, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I suspect that the ID enthusiasts will appeal this ruling all the way to SCOTUS, if they can.

My understanding is that there is little room or motivation for appeal, aside from personal scrutiny of the judge. Dover isn't going to appeal. This particular case is settled, and it also sets precedent. Another case in another district (say Kansas?) is another question entirely.

macmanmike6100 · 12-21-2005, 09:28 PM

a wonderful day for the promotion of rational thought. by virtue of its lack of evidence, creationism is irrational. worse (as the judge rightly identified), creationism is inherently religion. no religion in school!

Frowning Budah · 12-25-2005, 04:56 PM

This getting all blown out of proportion. I see no problem with teaching evolution and spending a class period mentioning other theories. As long as you stated that some things can be proved empirically and something are just a matter of faith.

My elementary teacher (we are talking long l o n g time ago) taught evolution, but told us that if we wrote that God created everything etc. He would not mark it as wrong.

SirLance · 12-26-2005, 10:21 AM

There's nothing wrong with alternative theories, the issue is that ID isn't a theory in the scientific sense. ID is religious belief wrapped up as a theory and presented as science. It is not science. It is deliberate misrepresentation.

Science observes the universe and attempts to explain it. Those explanations are subject to being tested and disproved. Part of what makes an explanation viable is that it correctly predicts what will happen.

ID does not predict, it is not subject to objective proof or disproof. ID simply isn't science. It should not be presented as such.

12-20-2005, 02:27 PM	#2 (permalink)
stevie667 Too Awesome for Aardvarks Location: Angloland	I've got a biology teacher who believes in ID, fortunatly she also keeps this to herself and teaches evolution, but if they tried to teach this to kids as part of the ciriculum, it would seriously fudge up their minds. Good decision. __________________ Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

12-20-2005, 03:13 PM	#4 (permalink)
Coppertop Getting Medieval on your ass Location: 13th century Europe	Amen. Damn minimum letter count. Last edited by Coppertop; 12-20-2005 at 03:14 PM.. Reason: precision

12-20-2005, 03:21 PM	#6 (permalink)
snowy Kick Ass Kunoichi Location: Oregon	rsl, thank you for sharing parts of the opinion; now I am compelled to read it. I am glad the judge showed understanding and thought in delivering his ruling. That, above all else, pleases me most. __________________ If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

12-20-2005, 09:18 PM	#12 (permalink)
JumpinJesus Junkie Location: Chicago	I'm glad to hear some sense coming out of this. I wonder how long proponents of ID will continue to insist their "theory" is not based on Creationism. I'd post more, but I'm in the midst of a war on christmas to which I must get back. __________________ "I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

12-20-2005, 09:31 PM	#13 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	the funniest thing of it all is that life doesn't look very smart, so far as we can judge that. there are lots of inefficiencies, redundancies, and oddities in how life is designed. c'mon...appendixes just aren't intelligent in human beings. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

12-20-2005, 03:19 PM	#5 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	Good news for those who favor science over mythology.

12-20-2005, 04:08 PM	#7 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Thanks for sharing that with us, rsl12. I suspect that the ID enthusiasts will appeal this ruling all the way to SCOTUS, if they can.

12-20-2005, 05:01 PM	#9 (permalink)
flat5 Very Insignificant Pawn Location: Amsterdam, NL	The trial never brought up the issue of UnIntelligent Design

12-20-2005, 08:58 PM	#10 (permalink)
analog Banned	One time I had to listen to some empty-headed nitwit drone on for minutes about how intelligent design should be taught in schools. My first comment was "you just want them to teach creationism, don't abuse the term 'intelligent design' when that's not what you mean, and we all know it." This sent her into a manic fit of yelling, much to the amusement of everyone present who wasn't on her side. Then I said, "and what about the words themselves... 'intelligent design'... how do you know God did all that on purpose? Maybe he just makes it up as he goes along- or maybe he's kinda dumb. You can't even prove He exists, but you're basing your whole argument on the fact that he's also a genius." Well. That was one of the funniest conversations I've ever been in where the whole point was to ridicule someone. Suffice to say, she went apeshit on me. One of my friends has asthma, i thought he was going to die because he was laughing so hard he gave himself an attack and sat down puffing on his inhaler for a few minutes.

12-20-2005, 09:12 PM	#11 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Thank God.

12-21-2005, 01:54 AM	#18 (permalink)
Zyr Crazy Location: Hamilton, NZ	I have no problem with the idea of creationism, but damnit, it's not science. Good on them. __________________ "Oh, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83 when I was the only practitioner of it, and I stopped because I was tired of being stared at." Omnia mutantu, nos et mutamur in illis. All things change, and we change with them. - Neil Gaiman, Marvel 1602

12-21-2005, 08:49 AM	#22 (permalink)
rsl12 On the lam Location: northern va	JinnKai, may I refer you to the Amazing Randi's Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge. Though most applicants drop out early in the process, a few have actually gone through to the testing stage: http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.04.04/news15.html Not all supernatural claims are untestable. __________________ oh baby oh baby, i like gravy. Last edited by rsl12; 12-21-2005 at 09:34 AM..

12-21-2005, 12:56 PM	#24 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	As someone who has a degree in evolutionary biology and has given talks AGAINST ID (and one of my most fun moments in biology was when I was cornered in a hotel room with 5 intervarsity christians trying to use ID to convert me) there is an aspect of this I don't like. I don't like judges deciding what gets taught. This doesn't seem like what should go to the courts. I do think the judge made the right choice, but it could have just as easily been the wrong one. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-21-2005, 03:04 PM	#27 (permalink)
frogza Registered User Location: Right Here	For me these things always come back to the same answer. If parents want their children to believe or disbelieve in any idea or faith they must teach it at home. Public school is to teach people how to think, how to observe the world and to provide the basic tools needed to come to intelligent conclusions. Too often now parents are sending there children to school to have them taught what to think instead of how to think.

12-21-2005, 03:12 PM	#28 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	That's all because we have so many right wing wackos out there saying that all schools are tools for indoctrinating our children into liberal society

12-21-2005, 07:04 PM	#30 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	It's interesting that every single reply in this thread agreed with the court's ruling. Most polls I've seen show that half of the country supports the teaching of intelligent design and/or creationism in public schools. I know TFP and the internet in general tend to be more science-oriented, but It makes you wonder about that other half of the country.

12-21-2005, 09:28 PM	#33 (permalink)
macmanmike6100 High Honorary Junkie Location: Tri-state.	a wonderful day for the promotion of rational thought. by virtue of its lack of evidence, creationism is irrational. worse (as the judge rightly identified), creationism is inherently religion. no religion in school!

12-25-2005, 04:56 PM	#34 (permalink)
Frowning Budah Slave of Fear	This getting all blown out of proportion. I see no problem with teaching evolution and spending a class period mentioning other theories. As long as you stated that some things can be proved empirically and something are just a matter of faith. My elementary teacher (we are talking long l o n g time ago) taught evolution, but told us that if we wrote that God created everything etc. He would not mark it as wrong.

12-26-2005, 10:21 AM	#35 (permalink)
SirLance Junkie Location: In the middle of the desert.	There's nothing wrong with alternative theories, the issue is that ID isn't a theory in the scientific sense. ID is religious belief wrapped up as a theory and presented as science. It is not science. It is deliberate misrepresentation. Science observes the universe and attempts to explain it. Those explanations are subject to being tested and disproved. Part of what makes an explanation viable is that it correctly predicts what will happen. ID does not predict, it is not subject to objective proof or disproof. ID simply isn't science. It should not be presented as such. __________________ DEMOCRACY is where your vote counts, FEUDALISM is where your count votes.