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.
How is that?
By MARTHA RAFFAELE, AP Education Writer 11 minutes ago
"Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.
The Dover Area School Board violated the Constitution when it ordered that its biology curriculum must include "intelligent design," the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled Tuesday.
The school board policy, adopted in October 2004, was believed to have been the first of its kind in the nation.
"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy," Jones wrote. "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."
The board's attorneys said members sought to improve science education by exposing students to alternatives to Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection causing gradual changes over time; intelligent-design proponents argue that it cannot fully explain the existence of complex life forms.
The plaintiffs argued that intelligent design amounts to a secular repackaging of creationism, which the courts have already ruled cannot be taught in public schools.
The Dover policy required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement said Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook, "Of Pandas and People," for more information.
Jones said advocates of intelligent design "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors" and that he didn't believe the concept shouldn't be studied and discussed.
"Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom," he wrote.
The dispute is the latest chapter in a long-running debate over the teaching of evolution dating back to the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, in which Tennessee biology teacher John T. Scopes was fined $100 for violating a state law that forbade teaching evolution. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed his conviction on the narrow ground that only a jury trial could impose a fine exceeding $50, and the law was repealed in 1967.
Jones heard arguments in the fall during a six-week trial in which expert witnesses for each side debated intelligent design's scientific merits. Other witnesses, including current and former school board members, disagreed over whether creationism was discussed in board meetings months before the curriculum change was adopted.
The controversy also divided the community and galvanized voters to oust eight incumbent school board members who supported the policy in the Nov. 8 school board election. They were replaced by a slate of eight opponents who pledged to remove intelligent design from the science curriculum.
The case is among at least a handful that have focused new attention on the teaching of evolution in the nation's schools.
Earlier this month, a federal appeals court in Georgia heard arguments over whether evolution disclaimer stickers placed in a school system's biology textbooks were unconstitutional. A federal judge in January ordered Cobb County school officials to immediately remove the stickers, which called evolution a theory, not a fact.
In November, state education officials in Kansas adopted new classroom science standards that call the theory of evolution into question.
___
Martha Raffaele covers education for The Associated Press in Harrisburg.
Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
I don't know about Bio 101, but I think you just flunked Evolutionary Theory 101.
Easy. It's mythology, no better or worse than the Greek, Roman, Norse or Egyptian variety.
Emphasis mine. On to Kansas!
Very slow to load, for obvious reasons.
I have it. Want me to post it on a mirror?
I have it. Want me to post it on a mirror?
Good.
Sorry, I didn't phrase myself well. From a scientific standpoint Genesis as literal history has already been gutted, sliced, diced, and incinerated. My actual point was that 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.
And back to you as well my friend. :-)
Way cool. :-)
Ditto...great decision. Intelligent decision.
No, it is not. Many religious people think that Evolution was the means by which God created Man.
Please, you might not agree with Catholicism, but surely you aren't going to tell me that the Pope is not religious, are you? Are you then saying that Catholicism is not a religion?
Yeah, that's right. In "survival of the fittest", it's totally random what's fit, and what's not.
My post was about his comments, not the case!
As far as "watching my language" take it up with the mods!
They need a good laugh!
1. "Evolution is predicated upon total randomness."
Not really. Suvival of the fittest may appear random (and to any given member of a population it would effectively be so), but if a condition that favored one trait over the another was put into effect by an outside force (say, like God sending an asteroid, or a farmer breeding a certain color plant, for example) it would be "directed" evolution, and not random at all.
2. "Miller and Urey origin of life needs no procreator - it was a random event (even though their work has been proven to be totally false)."
This is a bit of a red herring. Darwin's book was called "On the Origin of Species." His theory starts with existing life and delves not into the origin of life.
3. "Of course Darwinism is incompatible with religion. It is secular by design. No God is needed in their world. In fact a God, if proven, would eviscerate their theory."
Well, you disagree with the Roman Catholic Church (which is a fair thing to do; I do often, as well).
But certainly, this Chistian sees a God needed in a world whose present state was brought about by evolution. God made the world and the natural laws, which result in evolution, just as God designed the universe to do.
Science merely describes WHAT and HOW God did what He did. It does not delve into WHY.
It is no more incompatible with a creator than looking to see how yeast makes bread rise is incompatible with there being a baker of bread.
As oft-repeated similar example, scientists have shown that the Red Sea parts very dramatically when the tide is just so, the moon just so, water level just so, and wind blowing from the East at a certain speed.
Religious folk attack it as blasphemy.
Secularist hold it up as evidence that Moses performed no miracle.
A religious scientist says, "Wow. The miracle was in the timing of doing that just as Moses showed up and stopping just as the last Jew finished crossing."
It is the same with evolution. It is merely a glimpse of God's wonderful universe.
Later. Today we party. Tomorrow we teach.
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.