Intelligent Design case decided - Dover, Pennsylvania, School Board loses [Fox News Alert]

Fox News | 12/20/05

[snarks_when_bored]

Fox News alert a few minutes ago says the Dover School Board lost their bid to have Intelligent Design introduced into high school biology classes. The federal judge ruled that their case was based on the premise that Darwin's Theory of Evolution was incompatible with religion, and that this premise is false.

[2nsdammit]

"I don't agree with your interpretation that "freedom of religion" means "freedom from religion". If the Constitution doesn't allow religion in schools, why are the schools teaching religion?"

It means "freedom from the imposition of a particular religious doctrine". The schools are NOT teaching religion, no matter how hard you yell your message that the study of the natural processes in biology is a "religion". It just ain't so.

"That's been reported from several polls that were posted here on FR"

Cite one. And don't just cite the paraphrased interpretation that someone typed; cite the source of the poll.

[jwalsh07]

I really wouldn't care much if parents want to cripple their kids with YEC, except my brother did that to his kids. When they got out of high school and into the real world, the shock was so great they pretty much dropped out of society. They no longer speak to their father. Interestingly, they're fine talking to me.

We part company here. My parents raised all 5 of us Catholic beginning 55 years ago with all that entailed in those days. We all remain Catholic with a firm belief in Gods creation and if test scores are any indication, none of us suffered any deficiencies because we were taught that God created the universe as described in genesis.

I'm sorry that your nieces/nephews don't speak to their father but the argument in general has no merit.

[Fester Chugabrew]

LOL! In other words, you have nothing but the Bible to back up your assertions.

I don't recall citing any Bible passages to affirm the integrity of particle matter. I also am not aware that science is purely concerned with "proofs," as you continually assert. If the data and its interpretation are reasonable, then it may comfortably conform to scientific practice.

[jwalsh07]

OK, I've got a few minutes. I haven't read the holding, can't find it, but it is my understanding that the Judge uses the phrase "separation of church and state". Since the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution, the use of it is activist.

Are you prepared to defend the assertion that the Constitution requires a "separation of church and state"?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The schools are NOT teaching religion, no matter how hard you yell your message that the study of the natural processes in biology is a "religion". It just ain't so.

You didn't read all of my post that you responded to. My children have taken world religion classes in school. I consider that "teaching religion" despite whatever you might think.

Cite one. And don't just cite the paraphrased interpretation that someone typed; cite the source of the poll.

Why don't you quit pestering me and look for yourself?

[Protagoras]

Thread 7, post 12 and 72, dated 1998. But alas, the thread and posts were deleted by the mods because of the racism.

So all sarcasm aside, I'll ask you again, what the heck difference does a post by one person make? Are you saying there is a connection between one person saying something and all other people's comment being irrelevant because of it? Of course that is the childish point you have tried to make.

I'll make one case against intelligent design, your posts are devoid of it.

[Dimensio]

Ha Ha Ha Ho Ho Ho You probably believe in Santa Claus too.

I take it that you don't have a rational claim to make, nor do you wish to apologize for repeating a false claim regarding Darwin, who never rejected the theory of evolution.

I'm not sure why, but even after seeing it happen over and over again I still find it disturbing and surprising to watch creationists degenerate into mindless ranting when they run out of false claims to make and can't answer factual points put to them. I just can't fathom people being so deliberately out of touch with reality as to throw a temper tantrum when they are exposed as being in error.

[Diamond]

You don't have to give your religious or philosophical beliefs to do science.

Tell that to the judge and the plaintiffs in this case. They seemed to be very interested in the defendant's and expert witnesses religious beliefs. But I was not referring to scientists religious or philosophical beliefs. I was referring to ID scientists' interpretations of scientific data, which are anathema to the reigning orthodoxy.

ID is a parasitic meme that feeds on the research done by mainstream science.

Are you saying that research and articles in scientific publications are not for public use and interpretation by all scientists?

Cordially,

[jwalsh07]

Nothing in the Constitution prevents religion from being taught in any public school. Classes on Christianity, Islam, Judiasm et al are neither proscribed by the Constitution nor by the Oligarchy.

[Thatcherite]

my mood was tempered by the fact that your attempt at parody is so very and so sadly close to reality.

A real problem isn't it. I was as over the top as I could be whilst retaining comprehensibility, and yet all I managed was a painful approximation of reality.

[VadeRetro]

Individual voters don't have to wait for the next election. They can sue the school board. I don't know how long it's been like that, but I suspect it's been a long time.

As for being sued, anyone can be sued for anything.

There you are. Do something stupid, deceitful, and unconstitutional and you might be sued. You might lose. That's what happened here.

[Dimensio]

LOL! In other words, you have nothing but the Bible to back up your assertions.

I didn't see him falling back on the Bible to support his assertions. It looked more to me like he wasn't supporting his assertions with anything at all; he was simply describing an observation and claiming -- without justification -- that the observation supports his initial assertion.

[Protagoras]

Thou shall not steal.

[Dimensio]

The only part where you went off is in the backpeddling of your credentials. I've not seen actual creationists to do that. They either assert that they themselves have the credentials (while never demonstrating any level of knowledge that someone of said credentials should posess) or start out by citing an unnamed relative and/or friend with credentials (often credentials unspecified beyond "science" or "PhD", giving no indication regarding competence in biology) and stick with it.

They won't start with the assertion that they posess the credentials and then later claim that they "meant" someone else. That would be admitting a prior error, and creationists don't do that. If they start with the claim that they have credentials then they'll stick by their claim that they have "years" of experience under their belt, with no specific explanation of what that experience involved, no matter how incompetent they prove themselves in the relevant subjects of discussion.

[js1138]

I'm not posing an argument here based on personal experience.

I do believe, however, that most people are incredibly ignorant of science and its methods. They will rush out an buy a Nano, but shrink from understanding the interlinkages of thought and experience that make technology possible.

When you single out a specific finding of science because it is inconvenient to your worldview, you create an open wound that festers with ESP, pyramid power, Alien anal probes, and the like.

You also break the chain of reasoning that makes possible critical thinking on serious topics like junk science. Most of the people on FR have only one way of evaluating science. If it's supported by conservatives it's real; if it's supported by liberals it's fake.

This is pathetic.

You are welcome to believe anything you want about Genesis, but scientifically literate ID advocates like Behe, Denton, and several of the better known FReepers have acknowledged common descent as a fact. How you fit that into your religious system is up to you.

[little jeremiah]

"There is no way to know if God exists."

Such an absolute statement comes a God-like all-pervasive knowledge on your own part.

So, you can see in every nook and cranny of the universe, and beyond it, throughout all time, all space, in the heart of every atom, and every creature, and you can declare with absolute knowledge, "No one can know!".

Just because you don't see God doesn't mean others can't. Your statement comes from extreme arrogance and placing yourself in the position of being all knowing. Don't you see it?

[Recovering_Democrat]

There you are. Do something stupid, deceitful, and unconstitutional and you might be sued. You might lose. That's what happened here.

What a juvenile response. (sigh)

In order for you to be honest, then, you must never complain about a federal judge or banc thereof involving themselves into local decisions. So the next time a judge decides for you what the kids in your local district must or must not learn, kindly keep quiet.

Federal judges are not empowered by the Constitution to decide school curriculums. Period.

[Recovering_Democrat]

And, once again - the voters DID rectify it. They threw the board out in the next elections.

That is FINE with me...the VOTERS are the ones who OUGHT to be taking an interest in the kids of the district....my point is that a JUDGE has NO BUSINESS deciding a school district's CURRICULUM! People are SMART ENOUGH to figure out what they want their kids to learn!!

[conservative blonde]

Evolution cannot be replicated therefore, it is not a science. There are many many holes in it. Much that doesn't make sense; therefore, I choose to believe in a God Creator who made things separately and not one species evolving out of the next. If you want to be the offspring of slime and goo so be it. I don't.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Now you've gone and made me do it anyway.

Here is a larger Harris poll with typical results. Although it doesn't show the portion of the popoulation attending church, it does show that 90% of respondents believe in God.

I have no comment to the 31% who believe in astrology. ;)