Posted on 12/20/2005 7:54:38 AM PST by 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.
I'm not your buddy, and you make no argument, only personal attacks.
To the Bozo list with you.
The poster did not specify New England.
Who was quoting Roger Williams, who was expanding on the ideas of Fausto Sozinni, A.K.A. Faustus Socinus.
The school is a byproduct of the neighborhood, not the other way around.
Apparently the judge in this case has enjoined any teacher from disparging the theory or otherwise calling it into question. To even question the theory of evolution as it now stands is an unconstitutional establlishment of religion (at least in Dover).
Is that the decision you guys all were rooting for? It seems to be the decision you are all celebrating.
That was a good post. Thanks.
Apparently the judge in this case has enjoined any teacher from disparging the theory or otherwise calling it into question. To even question the theory of evolution as it now stands is an unconstitutional establlishment of religion (at least in Dover).
Sorry, that's mistaken. The ruling says that ID cannot be taught in biology class because it's religion playing scientific dress-up. The ruling does not forbid the discussion of problems that must be addressed by any viable scientific theory of life's development on this planet. Evolution theory is a work in progress and can be presented as such.
Actually the ruling appears to enjoin the district from teaching or promoting any form of ID in any class, not just in Science classes.
Ok, let's assume that it did, bcause that's what the relevant portions of the court transcript, which have been pasted into this thread several times now, demonstrates.
Now get out your copy of the CONSTITUTION and then explain to me and all the lurkers exactly how simply making a statement that ID as a viable scientific alternative to the TOE is "an establishment of religion" as referenced in the first amendment.
By virtue of the fact that the Dover supporters of ID failed conspicuously, to the point of committing obvious, rather brain-dead perjury, to hide the fact that their motivation, and a fair measure of material support, was overtly religious. I don't see cold fusioners or crystal healers, or UFOlogists displaying the energy to get their mottos posted on science textbooks, over the objections of scientists, by force of law, and any of those have a substantially better claim to being a legit science than ID does.
Also by virtue of the 1st Amendment, and the post-civil war amendments, which pushed constitutional rights and restrictions down upon local governments--which includes schools paid for with taxes, governed by elected schoolboards, and insisting on compulsory attendance. You might not like this, but in itself, that is unsufficient reason to consider the Supreme's current interpretation of these historical events innaccurate.
Just read the order. It is at the end of the stupid opinion.
I didn't think you could do it. I was right.
Very convincing if you are preaching to the choir. when the school authorities make claims about scientific theories that scientists do not share, in science textbooks, the claim that this is not part of the science curriculum is, well, coy. If you wish to make this claim in the cafeteria, in an informal discussion, maybe it's not a constitutional question. If you choose to insist on labeling science textbooks with claims that support your religious beliefs, and the judge uncovers the fact that your motivations are, in fact, religious, and your claims do not have the level of scientific respectability of dozens of other pseudo-science claims no one in their right mind would dream of putting as a label on a textbook, there is nothing, that makes sense to me, to shield you from the critical eye of the keepers of the Constitution.
Just read the order. It is at the end of the stupid opinion.
I've read the order. The portions relevant to our immediate discussion are parts 1 and 2:
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.
What must be noticed is that Judge Jones is permanently enjoining something quite specific, to wit, the ID Policy of the Dover School Board. The expression "ID Policy" was defined at the beginning of the order. It refers specifically to "the October 18, 2004 resolution and November 19, 2004 press release" of the Dover School Board. Let's look at both of these (note that by "students" the Dover board is referring to students in high school biology classes):
The October 18, 2004 Resolution
Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of Life is not taught.
The November 19, 2004 Press Release
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.
These two burnt offerings from the Dover School Board are the sum total of what the ruling refers to as "the ID Policy", nothing more. So, as I said in an earlier post to you, I don't find that the ruling forbids mentioning ID theory in religion classes, as one aspect of what some religious persons believe. I do think, however, that even in religion classes, teachers aren't going to be able to present ID as if it were true; as I just said, they'll have to present it as one aspect of what some religious persons believe.
That may be so, for all I know, but science isn't competent to demonstrate its truth or falsehood. Science restricts its attention proximate physical causes for things.
If parents want ID labels on their textbooks, they have the option of pulling their kids out of public school and homeschooling them. While kids are in compulsory public schools, supported by taxes, and run by elected schoolboards, we're likely to want to continue to insist that science textbooks concentrate exclusively on science and not spend any time touting for God.
The expression "ID Policy" was defined at the beginning of the orderbut I should've written:
The expression "ID Policy" was defined at the beginning of the ruling.
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.