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.
"particularly Math"
Very few people are competent in mathematics. Engineers are pretty safe, anyone else is iffy.
----
What about physicists? Or even mathematicians?
Asimov on creationism:
"Creationists have learned enough scientific terminology to use it in their attempts to disprove evolution. They do this in numerous ways, but the most common example, at least in the mail I receive is the repeated assertion that the second law of thermodynamics demonstrates the evolutionary process to be impossible.
In kindergarten terms, the second law of thermodynamics says that all spontaneous change is in the direction of increasing disorder—that is, in a "downhill" direction. There can be no spontaneous buildup of the complex from the simple, therefore, because that would be moving "uphill." According to the creationists argument, since, by the evolutionary process, complex forms of life evolve from simple forms, that process defies the second law, so creationism must be true.
Such an argument implies that this clearly visible fallacy is somehow invisible to scientists, who must therefore be flying in the face of the second law through sheer perversity. Scientists, however, do know about the second law and they are not blind. It's just that an argument based on kindergarten terms is suitable only for kindergartens.
To lift the argument a notch above the kindergarten level, the second law of thermodynamics applies to a "closed system"—that is, to a system that does not gain energy from without, or lose energy to the outside. The only truly closed system we know of is the universe as a whole.
Within a closed system, there are subsystems that can gain complexity spontaneously, provided there is a greater loss of complexity in another interlocking subsystem. The overall change then is a complexity loss in a line with the dictates of the second law.
Evolution can proceed and build up the complex from the simple, thus moving uphill, without violating the second law, as long as another interlocking part of the system — the sun, which delivers energy to the earth continually — moves downhill (as it does) at a much faster rate than evolution moves uphill. If the sun were to cease shining, evolution would stop and so, eventually, would life.
Unfortunately, the second law is a subtle concept which most people are not accustomed to dealing with, and it is not easy to see the fallacy in the creationists distortion."
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/azimov_creationism.html
Creationism and evolution are totally compatible. Creationism says "god did it" and evolution answers the question "how?"
I've been around long enough to know that that's a two-way street.
It is not just the neighborhood.
Asimov was an atheist.
Whether intellignet design is valid or not is inconsequential to this case.
Its all about another unwarrented, unconstitutional intrusion of the Federal Courts into an issue which should rightly be determined by the people through their elected official - in this case the School Board.
I hope they wait until Alito is appointed, then appeal it.
Considering that there is a mention of teaching a form of ID in Social Studies class(on a recent article of the Dover newpaper), I'd say you are mistaken.
You clearly don't show any understanding of what I'm talking about. I'm not arguing with you so there isn't a possiblity of a strawman arguement. Perhaps you just don't understand what goes on in classrooms these days.. or perhaps you never spent time in a science class. Either way what we are talking about is what is acceptable for teachers to teach. Clearly ID isn't scientific. But teachers saying that Darwinism proves that God doesn't exist isn't here. And if you don't think that's going on in today's science classes you need to take the blinders off.
It most assuredly is going on.
I believe that may have been before this decision came down. Considering how incredibly broad the Establishment Clause was taken with this ruling, I'd have to conclude that any criticism of the scientific basis for the TOE by any teacher in any classs would be considered an Establishment of Religion.
All the policy did here was to mention that ID may be a viable alternative to the TOE. Thus, it can be deduced that any attempt by any school official to endorse or encourage the study of ID would have to be considered verbotten.
For instance, if, instead of reading the offending statement regarding ID in science class, the school board stated that it must now be announced over the loudspeaker during lunch to the general student population, do you think that would pass muster with this judge? Or if the statement were now required to be prominently placed in the school newspaper or displayed on the classroom bulletin boards, do you think that the ACLU would not be dragging this school district back before this judge and requesting that they be held in conempt?
If so, then you are naieve. This case was an all out assault on the first amendment in an attempt to interpret the establishment clause so broadly as to muzzle every teacher from giving his or her opinion questioning the scientific validity or the factual basis for the TOE.
It is amazing to me that the TOE is such a fragile theory that its propoenents would make a federal case over the reading of that sentence one time during a school year. Apparently the Theory itself must be built upon a foundation of quicksand, otherwise I cannot imagine that anyone could possibly care one whit that the district instituted this policy.
The school board that made this stupid policy was fired by the voters. There will never be an appeal.
The resultion and press release does not endorse ID nor does it endorse Darwin. It affirms that Darwin will be taught even to those who strongly object to the basis for the theory as it conflicts with their religious faith and informs those students that they may wish to study such theories as Intelligent design on their own.
This was such an incredibly innocuous policy that there is simply no way on earth that it could possibly (under any reasonable circumstances) be considered a violation of the clause in the constutution that prohibits the congress from making any law respecting "an establishment of religion."
The decision was not based on the language of the resolution, but on the motives of those who passed the resolution. The judge determined that their motives were improper. Thus an otherwise valid law is struck down merely because the law was passed by members of a certain religious group or by people who were concerned with accomodating the religious beliefs of some students for whom the Theory of Evolution might negatively affect their deeply held religious beliefs.
If that doesn't bother you, then I don't think you truly understand the implications of this ruling.
Anyone afraid of one very short statement read once in a year's time, must have some serious anxiety about the strength of their position.
Beyond that, I simply can't believe that this is an "establishment" issue. I keep looking in the phone book for the "One-Statement-a-Year Christian Church" and I just can't seem to find it.
It's too bad we can't do that to the judge who made this stupid ruling.
The poster wanted to use Revolutionary America as a standard of living for today.
Should we reinstate slavery then?
Done with you; don't bother, I won't respond.
The is the part that is truly disturbing. These kids are forced to answer a specific way about a quasi-scientific opinion, and if they don't answer in a way that violates their conscience, their good sense, and their religion, then they are penalized on a standardized test that controls their graduation.
That is abominable.
The judge ruled the only way possible, given the testimony.
Here's a clue: if you're in federal court under oath, tell the truth. Part of the harshness of the verdict is a result of lying under oath by the defendents.
That was excellent!
I would also add that the energy has to be added while the system remains at constant temperature or this equation is not valid.
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.