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.

[bobdsmith]

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.

Not believing the science is no excuse for failing the exam, otherwise you run into this sort of senario:

"Why did you get such bad results in your biology test?"

"Ah well you see it's my religious belief that disease is caused by immorality and not germs, so that is exactly what I wrote in the exam. It's not fair that they should penalise me for my religious beliefs"

[ThinkPlease]

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.

No, it was in an article about the new school board's response to the end of the lawsuit, which came out the same day as the decision.

It is my opinion that you are off base over the Establishment of Religion phrase in the Constitution. The major reason why Judge Jones nuked it from the curriculum is because it is clearly not a viable alternative to evolution as Science, particularly the version that the Dover School Board wanted to push forth in "Of Panda's and People". More than 2/3rds of the decision (from pages 1-85) not only discuss the religious aspects of ID, but also at the end it concludes very clearly at the end that at the end of the debate, there are too many statements (that the ID proponents make themselves) that pretty much reduce the scientific value of ID to near zero. For example (from page 68):

"First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. (28:26 (Fuller); 21:37-42 (Behe)). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces. (38:97 (Minnich))." (Page 68 of the Judge's decision)

And that's just one example. It is very clear from reading the judge's decision that nearly every argument made by the Thomas More lawyers in favor of ID could be traced to a religious aspect of some kind in this case (right down to the possible perjury committed in hiding who paid for the texts), and it is clear that when you invoke a supernatural entity to explain something, that the explanation is no longer science.

Now, there may be a form of ID that isn't based on religion(and we certainly haven't seen that version yet), but they weren't advocating that at Dover in the slightest.

Your argument that they were Establishing a Religion clearly has no basis in this case, what is evident is that the Dover School Board was promoting something that wasn't science even in the liberal definitions of the word.

[BagelFace]

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. 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.

Rubbish. Knowledge of the ToE is essential to any reasonable level of education about the world. Religiosity does not preclude essential knowledge. That is "good sense" after all.

[Diamond]

Horse manure. More mystical nonsense. Objective standards and the supernatural are incompatible.

You presuppose the supernatural in your reply; otherwise, your protestations and mine are just the result of empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of brains. This would mean that you do not believe atheism because it is true, but rather because of chance concatenations of atoms. So your atheism ends up destroying rationality andobjective standards. If there is no God, then ALL abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, no different from horse manure, which means that you have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to those irrational physical forces and chemical reactions. It's the same as assigning truth or falsity to horse manure.

Of course you assume objective truth but your world view provides no foundation for it. You assume them because you are God's creature and live in His universe and you can't help it. Your knowledge of God is evident in your unacknowledged presuppositions, although not in your affirmations. You argue against God but you have to take him for granted to do so.

Cordially,

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You presuppose the supernatural in your reply; otherwise, your protestations and mine are just the result of empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of brains."

No, I really don't.

"This would mean that you do not believe atheism because it is true, but rather because of chance concatenations of atoms."

I am not an atheist.

" Of course you assume objective truth but your world view provides no foundation for it."

Speak for yourself.

"Your knowledge of God is evident in your unacknowledged presuppositions, although not in your affirmations. You argue against God but you have to take him for granted to do so."

No, I don't.

[BagelFace]

You presuppose the supernatural in your reply; otherwise, your protestations and mine are just the result of empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of brains. This would mean that you do not believe atheism because it is true, but rather because of chance concatenations of atoms. So your atheism ends up destroying rationality andobjective standards. If there is no God, then ALL abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, no different from horse manure, which means that you have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to those irrational physical forces and chemical reactions. It's the same as assigning truth or falsity to horse manure. Of course you assume objective truth but your world view provides no foundation for it. You assume them because you are God's creature and live in His universe and you can't help it. Your knowledge of God is evident in your unacknowledged presuppositions, although not in your affirmations. You argue against God but you have to take him for granted to do so.

you argue with a guitar man? a guitar man?? a guitar man??? (PS: what did you actually say, I can't make heads or tails of it)

[js1138]

Answer: don't take biology. Biology is not required for graduation anywhere.

How about physics? Do you want an exemption in physics classes for kids who don't believe the speed of light is constant, or don't believe the rate of radioactive decay is constant?

[ThinkPlease]

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.

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.

This argument is a dangerous one to get into, considering that the ID people still don't have a legitimate peer reviewed paper to their name, and that all of their gains have to be made through political and religious statements. That speaks more to the means that ID proponents have sunk to --it's not enough that they can speak to churches and get their ideas promoted in sunday school, but they have to try to get it in science class, as well. Seems that they are making more noise than the evos have, and to lots of loud noise and pretty lights, but no real effect.

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

It would only be the establishment of a religion if it went farther to state which deity, and any teacher worth their salt could avoid that argument.

If ID isn't religion than what is it? The purveyor's of ID can't support any workable definition of "complexity". There is no research done in it, only re-hashing of other's people's work according to ideological surmises.

If you follow the rest of this thread, you see that many of the folks complaining do so because they feel God was kicked out of the classroom again. I think's that because "which deity" still means the Christian God. I personally believe there is only one God and we know him in the west through Jesus Christ.

I think if the ID'ers adopted our own Alamo-Girl's interpretation of ID as a kind of "self-assembling intelligence", then you could include ID in philosophy of science or metaphysics.

ID as the study of the history of space aliens on earth doesn't belong in any science class, much less biology. Unless of course, somebody should uncover evidence of aliens engineering life forms on our planet. But that hasn't happened yet, if it ever does.

Merry Christmas to you and your family.

[P-Marlowe]

The major reason why Judge Jones nuked it from the curriculum is because it is clearly not a viable alternative to evolution as Science

He had NO AUTHORITY to make such a determination. He was charged with making a determination as to whether the policy on its face was a violation of the establishment clause. He was not charged with resolving the scientific dispute over the validity of one theory over another nor did he have jurisdiction to make that inquiry.

But the Lemon Test goes beyond the mere letter of the law and forces the inquiry into the motives of those who made the policy. That is a dangerous thing to do. If this policy had been instituted by concerned atheists or concerned Bhuddists rather than by concerned fundamentalists, then the policy would not even have been challenged.

Think about that, please.

[donh]

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.

Perhaps you could cite a specific example of a biology teacher citing Darwin's theory as proof that God doesn't exist, in a biology classroom.

[ThinkPlease]

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.

Whats more abominable is that these same kids depend on this bad science when they see their doctors during an illness (to get beneficial medicines), or when they are in ill health. Darn them to heck for using techniques gained through the study of evolution!

[13Sisters76]

I don't HAVE to read EVERY post here...the arguments NEVER change. And only a precious few are actually arguments as opposed to slams against those who disagree with you.
For ANY "scientific fact" to BECOME a scientific fact there MUST, at SOME point, be a fact to support it. 150 years for evolution and not a single one.
I'm so sorry my disagreement with you has so pissed you off...(not sorry at all).
Time to get over it..and yourself.

[xzins]

Actually, you're comparing apples and oranges. Microbiological creatures are not a matter of opinion. They are testable, verifiable, falsifiable, etc.

Evolution on the other hand is not.....it is opinion. Imo, probably best for a philosophy class.

For what it's worth, following the Judeo-Christian teachings regarding immorality will prevent any number of diseases.

The CDC says that total abstinence is the only method that when fully practiced results in zero infection and zero pregnancy.

[P-Marlowe]

Answer: don't take biology. Biology is not required for graduation anywhere.

Reallyi?

Graduation Requirements

Courses required for graduation and university admission

The California Education Code (EC) establishes minimum requirements for graduation from California high schools. These requirements should be seen as minimums and support regulations established by local school boards.

The California State University (CSU) and the University of California (UC) have established a uniform minimum set of courses required for freshman admission. The UC has created a Doorways site that provides complete information about the high school courses approved for university admission. In addition to the required courses, California public universities have other freshman admission requirements.

High School Subject Area	State Mandated Requirements* (EC 51225.3) for High School Graduation	UC Requirements for Freshman Admissions	CSU Requirements for Freshman Admissions
English	Three years	Four years of approved courses	Four years of approved courses
Mathematics	Two years, including Algebra I beginning in 2003-04. (EC 51224.5)	Three years, including algebra, geometry, and intermediate algebra. Four years recommended.	Three years, including algebra, intermediate algebra, and geometry.
Social Science	Three years of history/social science, including one year of U.S. history & geography; one year of world history, culture, and geography; and one semester each of American government and economics.	Two years of history/social science, including one year of U.S. history or one-half year of U.S. history and one-half year of civics or American government; and one year of world history, cultures, and geography.	Two years, including one year of U.S. history or U.S. history and government and one year of other approved social science.
Science	Two years, including biological and physical sciences.	Two years with lab required, chosen from biology, chemistry, and physics. Three years recommended.	Two years, including one year of biological and one year of physical science with lab.
Foreign Language	One year of either visual and performing arts or foreign language.	Two years in same language required. Three years recommended.	Two years in same language required.
Visual and Performing Arts		One year of visual and performing arts chosen from the following: dance, drama/theater, music, or visual art.	One year of visual and performing arts chosen from the following: dance, drama/theater, music, or visual art.
Physical Education	Two years
Electives		One year**	One year**
Total	13	15 (7 in the last two years)	15
A district must offer "24 course hours in grades nine to twelve inclusive" (EC Section 46201 [a] [4], apportionment statute)

* Beginning in 2005-06, all students must pass the California High School Exit Examination prior to graduation, in addition to meeting course requirements.

** Must be chosen from approved academic courses in history, English, advanced mathematics, lab science, foreign language, social science, or fine arts. See UC Doorways for approved courses at your high school.

[Coyoteman]

Answer: don't take biology. Biology is not required for graduation anywhere.

How about physics? Do you want an exemption in physics classes for kids who don't believe the speed of light is constant, or don't believe the rate of radioactive decay is constant?

How about geology. Do you want an exemption for kids who believe the Grand Canyon came about in a half hour?

[donh]

For ANY "scientific fact" to BECOME a scientific fact there MUST, at SOME point, be a fact to support it. 150 years for evolution and not a single one.

Huh. Better get a letter out to the world's paleontology museums and university departments. They seem to be laboring under the delusion that there is a bit of tangible evidence.

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

For ANY "scientific fact" to BECOME a scientific fact there MUST, at SOME point, be a fact to support it. 150 years for evolution and not a single one.

Actually there are trillions of them with new ones being generated by the thousands every day. New findings in genomics, combinatorial genetics, quorum sensing and any of the new disciplines in biology support the good old fossil record and comparative morphologies of anatomies, organs and cells.

Now if you could just dig that billion year old fossil of a homo sapiens out of the attic, you'd be in business.

(By the way, what's the 13 sisters thing?)

[Dimensio]

I don't HAVE to read EVERY post here

True, but you seem to be wallowing in ignorance, and now you've just admitted that your ignorance is deliberate.

the arguments NEVER change.

Not our fault that the creationists can't come up with new material when their old lies are debunked. Take it up with the creationists who repeat the same demonstratably false claims over and over again.

For ANY "scientific fact" to BECOME a scientific fact there MUST, at SOME point, be a fact to support it.

Evolution is a theory supported by a plethora of facts.

150 years for evolution and not a single one.

This statement is simply false, though you did admit previously that you choose to remain willfully ignorant, so it's not surprising that you'd make such a statement.

[js1138]

Biology isn't required for high school graduation. If select colleges require it, that's tough. Most colleges don't.