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.

[jwalsh07]

You did, I thought only my brother had a skull thickness approaching the slab under Madison Square Garden.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Fester believes that because we see organized matter following regular, predictable laws, that that automatically is solid evidence that there is an intelligent designer. You will not get through to him.

[jwalsh07]

6th Circuit Judge Richard Suhrheinrich wrote in the unanimous decision: "The ACLU makes repeated reference to the 'separation of church and state.' This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state. Our nation's history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion."

From yesterdays opinion.

Now what?

[highball]

Trust me, you can't argue with him. He believes that his own emotional inferences equal physical evidence.

Really, Dan, don't bother.

[dread78645]

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

Federal judges are empowered to decide federal questions, and Congress gave them the power to create appropriate remedies in 28 USC 2201 & 2202.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Trust me, you can't argue with him. He believes that his own emotional inferences equal physical evidence.

This is what I'm discovering.

FRegards,

[Fester Chugabrew]

Would you care to elaborate?

If you cared to word your question unambiguously, the answer would be unambiguous, too. The answer is, "Yes, I have cited something that supports my assertions, namely the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws."

What tests can I use to objectively prove the creationists' claims?

I've already told you science is not only about "objective proofs." It functions primarily on reason and reasonable evidence. Take any physical object and observe it for a period of time. Does it behave predictably? If so, that is one piece of evidence for intelligent design. Are you able to observe it in the first place? That, too, is a piece of evidence for intelligent design. Does this objectively prove intelligent design? No, and it doesn't have to in order to be scientific.

Under what conditions can creationism be objectively proven one way or the other?

There you again on the "objectively proven" binge. The most convincing argument against intelligent design would be for particle matter to behave erractically or disintegrate altogether. This tends to happen very rarely, so the evidence against intelligent design seems nearly non-existent in that regard.

[Thatcherite]

poke fun bump

Well, FR is meant to be about fun isn't it. Sometimes these crevo threads are way too serious (myself to the fore of the grim faced hatchet-men).

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

Maybe it's the lack of blue spew to indicate the whack-nut posts to ignore.

It is getting harder to tell.

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Belief is irrelevant.

I see by your tag line, that that is true.

[Ceewrighter]

"Allowing one particular creation myth to be taught in science class at the demand of outsiders opens the door for many creation myths to be taught."

How familiar are you with the particulars of the case? The school board in Dover made a local decision to add a brief statement, constituting 12 lines, that addressed the gaps that still exist in the TofE. Then, for the next four weeks, the class explored the TofE without further mention of ID.

What's your problem with a local school board making a local decision to ensure their students are made aware of a persisting problem in their curriculum. In any other course of study, whenever deviations from the theory exist, it is cited. So what's the problem with a local school district ensuring that science teachers do the same?

[Virginia-American]

[Evolution is ]... a theory? And an unproven one at that.

Could you please post a link to the proof of a proven theory? Thanks.

[Virginia-American]

As a matter of fact, in my conspiracy theory sessions, I think the Discovery Institute actually is a leftist organization,

You and me both. I'd love to see their donor list; wonder if Soros (or one of his front groups) is on it.

I also wonder how many of the FReepers who claim to be creationists or IDists are in fact ringers from DU or some such place salting FR with juicy quotes ot mine later.

Truth is, as someone pointed out on the Hovind thread, I wonder how much ID stuff is sincere, and how much is a cynical rip-off, like Uri Geller, the people who conduct seances, et al.

[2nsdammit]

Ah, I see. So your pet subject (apparently the phrase "separation of church and state") must be the context whereby we discuss this subject. Anyone who interprets the argument in some other context must be dense....

I, and apparently most of the posters on this thread, seem to be comfortable with the CONCEPT of separation of church and state as a driving principal behind modern jurisprudence, even though it originates in case law, and is not specifically stated in so many words in the constitution. The argument that I thought was transpiring here was whether Intelligent Design constitutes a religious belief, or a competing theory to Evolution. Although, I must admit, there are several posters who seem to be advocating the teaching of religion in public schools.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Now, wait a minute.

Intelligent design, as defined by Wikipedia, makes the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection."

Meaning that a sentient being (or something) had its hand in the creation of life, the universe, and everything as we know it.

I truly don't believe that most of the people pushing for intelligent design to be taught in science class, would consider that this sentient force capable of creating (designing) life to be a creature from another world or dimension.

They undoubtedly believe that this sentient force must be the being most people call "God" in one language or another.

So, intelligent design is religion in disguise trying to force its way into a science classroom, and while I have absolutely no problem with the idea of intelligent design being taught in school (or classes about religion for that matter), it should not be taught in science class because it is an alternative to science, not science!

Now...if a public school curriculum includes a mandatory class that teaches that this or that particular religion (or religious belief) is the one true religion/belief, then a line has been crossed.

It would be the same as forcing medical schools to teach Voodoo rites as an alternative technique for curing disease.

Now, here's my problem with the idea of intelligent design...it argues that we exist because our organisms where created by some greater force in such a way that we could survive in the world as we know it.

It has at its center, the idea that since we were created out of nothing, there is no available proof to support the idea.

In other words, since man did not exist until created by this omnipotent entity, everything that is found is either man, or not man.

It's a retroactive explanation to molded to support a pre-existing idea.

The opposite of course being the argument that we exist today because this is the form that was able to exist and thrive given the prevailing conditions on this planet.

All in all, I don't believe that intelligent design should be taught in science class any more than I believe that it should be taught in Sunday school.

[Luis Gonzalez]

And you and yours as well my friend.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

If you cared to word your question unambiguously, the answer would be unambiguous, too. The answer is, "Yes, I have cited something that supports my assertions, namely the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws."

Bwahahahahahahah! See below:

I've already told you science is not only about "objective proofs." It functions primarily on reason and reasonable evidence. Take any physical object and observe it for a period of time. Does it behave predictably? If so, that is one piece of evidence for intelligent design. Are you able to observe it in the first place? That, too, is a piece of evidence for intelligent design. Does this objectively prove intelligent design? No, and it doesn't have to in order to be scientific.

Bwahahahahahahahaha!! My bird behaves in an unpredictable manner.

As you say, evidence does not have to be scientific or objective to be considered valid. By your standard, my bird's unpredictable behavior is one piece of evidence that that ID (creationism) is an invalid theory.

There you again on the "objectively proven" binge. The most convincing argument against intelligent design would be for particle matter to behave erractically or disintegrate altogether. This tends to happen very rarely, so the evidence against intelligent design seems nearly non-existent in that regard.

Bwahahahahahahahaha!!

ID (creationism) is to science what the whole-word method of teaching was to english and spelling. Creationists don't need to prove anything using objective evidence. Simply believing is good enough. LOL!

My bird says your theory is full of beans.

[2nsdammit]

I shouldn't jump into this foray, but sometimes I just can't resist....

"Take any physical object and observe it for a period of time. Does it behave predictably? If so, that is one piece of evidence for intelligent design."

That is merely evidence of existing physical forces regarding the behavior of said physical object. It says nothing of the specific nature or origin of those forces. Said physical object could move predictably because God said so. It could move predictably because tiny aliens are moving it, according to their own reasons. It could move predictably because gravity acts upon it in a specific way.

Your observation can tell you absolutely nothing about the origin, design, or lack thereof of those predictable forces.

[toadthesecond]

The brief statement also pointed them to a book (Pandas) that was creationist (or at least creation wearing a false beard and glasses)

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Again, where does the phrase Spearation of church and state" originate?"

Roger Williams.