Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design case decided - Dover, Pennsylvania, School Board loses [Fox News Alert]
Fox News | 12/20/05

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.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: biology; creation; crevolist; dover; education; evolution; intelligentdesign; keywordpolice; ruling; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 3,381-3,391 next last
To: bulldozer

How is that?


61 posted on 12/20/2005 8:19:36 AM PST by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design'

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.


62 posted on 12/20/2005 8:19:43 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage
Obviously the Judge flunked Bio 101. Evolution is predicated upon total randomness. Mutations are random, micro- and macroevolution are random, 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).

I don't know about Bio 101, but I think you just flunked Evolutionary Theory 101.

63 posted on 12/20/2005 8:20:22 AM PST by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: laxin4him
how do you explain the genealogy in Matthew that goes back all the way to Adam?

Easy. It's mythology, no better or worse than the Greek, Roman, Norse or Egyptian variety.

64 posted on 12/20/2005 8:20:37 AM PST by Ace of Spades (Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions. Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

Emphasis mine. On to Kansas!

65 posted on 12/20/2005 8:21:12 AM PST by Right Wing Professor (Liberals have hijacked science for long enough. Now it's our turn -- Tom Bethell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Link to the court's 139 page (pdf file) opinion: Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District.

Very slow to load, for obvious reasons.

66 posted on 12/20/2005 8:21:19 AM PST by PatrickHenry (... endless horde of misguided Luddites ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I have it. Want me to post it on a mirror?


67 posted on 12/20/2005 8:21:48 AM PST by Right Wing Professor (Liberals have hijacked science for long enough. Now it's our turn -- Tom Bethell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I have it. Want me to post it on a mirror?


68 posted on 12/20/2005 8:21:50 AM PST by Right Wing Professor (Liberals have hijacked science for long enough. Now it's our turn -- Tom Bethell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
Dover School Board lost their bid to have Intelligent Design introduced into high school biology classes.

Good.

69 posted on 12/20/2005 8:23:35 AM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laxin4him
Not sure how it would eviscerate Genesis being literal history though. Maybe you could help me on that one.

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.

70 posted on 12/20/2005 8:23:54 AM PST by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

Comment #71 Removed by Moderator

To: Physicist

And back to you as well my friend. :-)


72 posted on 12/20/2005 8:24:11 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Way cool. :-)


73 posted on 12/20/2005 8:24:40 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Ace of Spades

Ditto...great decision. Intelligent decision.


74 posted on 12/20/2005 8:25:08 AM PST by Vaquero ("An armed society is a polite society" R. A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: saganite
Yes, intelligent design is the mainstream belief among most Christians...so therefore we should keep it from being taught in public schools? There is absolutely no logic in that stance. Could it not be argued that we ARE limiting someone's right to freedom of religion by forcing one set of beliefs/theories on them? In this case, these beliefs do form a sort of religion, and this religion is being forced upon students as the one and only religion.
Intelligent Design goes beyond the church. Much of the evidence used to support these evolution theories (which is exactly what they are, theories, not facts) can, conversely, be used to support Intelligent Design.
Take the bat wing. For quite some time, evolutionists have chosen to compare the similar framework between the bat's wing and the human's arm and call it yet another case of evolution. But could it not be that an almighty being used a design that works in two different species? Doesn't an architect use similar designs in more than one building?
75 posted on 12/20/2005 8:25:57 AM PST by justtryingtopassapenglish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage
Of course Darwinism is incompatible with religion.

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?

76 posted on 12/20/2005 8:26:51 AM PST by Paradox (Time to sharpen ole Occam's Razor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage
Evolution is predicated upon total randomness.

Yeah, that's right. In "survival of the fittest", it's totally random what's fit, and what's not.

77 posted on 12/20/2005 8:26:53 AM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: cloud8

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!


78 posted on 12/20/2005 8:27:47 AM PST by sausageseller (Look out for the jackbooted spelling police. There! Everywhere!(revised cause the "man" accosted me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Doc Savage

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.


79 posted on 12/20/2005 8:27:53 AM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: wolf24
I am pretty ignorant when it comes to the scientific experiments that have been conducted on evolution

Later. Today we party. Tomorrow we teach.

80 posted on 12/20/2005 8:27:57 AM PST by Right Wing Professor (Liberals have hijacked science for long enough. Now it's our turn -- Tom Bethell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 3,381-3,391 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson