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.

[dread78645]

Judge Jones finds that “intelligent design” is not science.

Still reading; but this looks like the "wide" ruling.

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

A funny blog on Behe is here.

CAUTION: adult language.

[justtryingtopassapenglish]

If we believe it is possible, then why do we try and prevent our students from learning such theories?

The Designer has given plenty of evidence of His might handiwork. And you can talk to Him anytime you'd like...it's just a matter of willingness.

[justtryingtopassapenglish]

If we believe it is possible, then why do we try and prevent our students from learning such theories?

The Designer has given plenty of evidence of His might handiwork. And you can talk to Him anytime you'd like...it's just a matter of willingness.

[Shadowfax]

"Yes, but God is not a testable theory."

Neither is evolution. In fact, evolution is not observable, reproducible, or predictive in nature, arguments that deliberately confuse macro-evolution and micro-evolution (or adaptation) to the contrary. Therefore, by definition, the Theory of Evolution is not valid science. It's the creation myth of atheists and is being propped up by a group of scientists that are terrified that someone's going to start paying attention to that man behind the curtain.

[CharlesWayneCT]

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.

In other words, the judge ruled that Darwin's theory of evolution is NOT incompatable with "religion".

Now, there are many religious figures who assert that the theory of evolution IS incompatable with their religion. The judge said that HE knows their religion better than THEY do, and that Evolution is compatable with what I guess he considers "true religion".

This is NOT an argument over whether religion should be taught in schools -- the Judge ruled that the school board's argument was that evolution was an affront to religion, and that they were wrong about that.

I presume that this means the board's argument was in part based on the concept that a person shouldn't have their religion attacked when they attend a public school. The judge could have said that the state has every RIGHT to present facts that are in opposition to religious beliefs.

But the Judge, according to the sentence above, didn't say that the state could do so -- he said that teaching evolution did not present opposition to any religion.

So, in summary, the judge just said that, if your religious leaders say creation is true, and evolution is false, you simply are not a REAL religion, because evolution is compatable with "true religions", as determined by the United States of America.

If your religion opposes evolution, the United States (through this judge) says your religion isn't a real religion. They have established a basic tenet of REAL religion, which is that evolution is accepted.

That is what I mean by government establishing religion. They do the same when they argue that a Menorah is OK because it isn't a religious symbol, but the 10 commandments is forbidden because it is inherently a religious teaching. Thus giving the government "seal of approval" of the religion of christianity, while relegating other religions to a lesser status.

I like to illustrate this with a somewhat inaccurate example: You can burn the symbols of ANY religion in this country, except the one TRUE religion, which the government provides with a special protection not even afforded to our own american flag.

What do I speak of? Well, the ultimate symbol of the true religion, the Cross upon which our Lord and Savior died. You can't burn one of those and argue it's freedom of speech, we'll throw you in jail for 10 years for even ASSISTING in burning a cross.

When was the last time you heard of someone jailed for burning the symbols of any other religion?

[MeanWestTexan]

1. "If you try and believe that evolution and Christianity are compatible how do you explain the genealogy in Matthew that goes back all the way to Adam? If it is not literal history it would be a lie and thus the bible could be full of lies."

Evolutionary analysis of mitochondria (inherited by the mother only) and the Y-Chromosome (father only) has actually confirmed that there is at least one common male and one common female ancestor. (It can neither confirm, nor deny, that they existed at the same time; but, by default, the common ancestor would have parents, making this point moot.) It's called the "Y-Chromosome Adam" and "Mitochondrial Eve."

2. "It says Adam and Eve were the first humans but I guess it would be silly to trace it back before adam and include the monkees huh?"

One, monkeys ("monkees" are a singing group I think, but I can't spell, either) are not ancestors. The theory is that all primates have a common ancestor that is neither monkey, nor man.

But one starts with Adam and Eve, of course, because they ate from the tree of knowledge (in biological terms, became self-aware). Anything that came before would merely be an animal, and not man.

[Physicist]

The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial.

Just what I wanted for Kitzmas.

[Right Wing Professor]

This is big. Very big.

Hugh, and series.

There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth at the Discovery Institute.

[RightWingNilla]

all the biology we've done since the late 19th century flunked Bio 101.

LOL!

[laxin4him]

Does from a scientific standpoint mean you can't replicate the conditions with an experiment and test it to find out if it is true?
"proving a God exists would hardly contradict the evidence in support of evolution. It would merely indicate that the God which exists is not the one you and others who take Genesis literally imagine to exist."
I guess it depends on what that god thought about evolution. Maybe the newly found god that was proved to exist could refute evolution. Maybe I am still confused.

[Ace of Spades]

I respect your beliefs. But faith is not fact.

[Rockingham]

This ought not to have been unexpected. The faith based challenge to the teaching of evolution has been misconceived. The target ought to be not evolution as properly understood as a scientific doctrine of limited application beyond its purview, but: (1) the outlandish claims often made that evolution somehow disproves the existence of God and the core tenets of Christianity; and (2) the often extreme, de facto culture of philosophical materialism and amorality that is now embedded in the public schools.

Here's the beginning of a solution that the ACLU and the public schools would hate but be hard put to dispute. Require that every public school regularly and expressly warn their students and parents: "Current federal court rulings mean that we cannot teach religion or matters of faith and morals. Students, ask your parents and follow their teachings. Parents, teach your students about faith and morals." Post that in every student and parent handbook, in every textbook, and in every classroom. And, in the biology texts, put in a similar warning that evolution should not be taken as refuting religious faith.

If nothing else, that would shift the terms of debate to a fight that we can win. Hope for victory in the culture wars requires that we pick fights that we can and do win in the short term even as we aim at the larger cultural reformation that goes against current trends. Eventually, we are going to have to seek either to have a voucher system and no publicly owned and run schools so that kids can have religion taught in schools, which current law would allow, or have the Supreme Court revise its precedents to allow nondenominational prayer and release time denominational instruction in the schools.

[RadioAstronomer]

There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth at the Discovery Institute.

Wailing as well. LOL!

[Right Wing Professor]

You have a very narrow view of the scientific method, if you think all we do is vary x and measure y.

[Anti-MSM]

Intelligent design doesn't belong in science classes.

Neither does evolution when they try to teach it as fact, when it's merely an unproven theory.

[gdani]

If we believe it is possible, then why do we try and prevent our students from learning such theories?

The Nation of Islam believes the white race is the result of an ancient science experiment gone awry by a meddling scientist named Yacub.

You OK with teaching that in a public school?

[HereInTheHeartland]

"The constitution doesn't say anything about practicing your religion in a public school. "

Actually it mentions nothing of a public school either.
The Founders would not have approved of the nanny state leftist "public" school system.
They would be aghast at tax money being forcibly taken from citizens to fund a government education system.
We have moved so far from their intent it is laughable.

[laxin4him]

I have not found any that can take all the variables into account. I forgot to add a little sarcasm to my original post that "evolution was the only scientifically proven 'theory'" Sorry for the confusion.