Posted on 01/08/2009 7:57:56 PM PST by Coyoteman
Abstract: ID (‘intelligent design’) is not science, but a form of creationism; both are very different from the simple theological proposition that a divine Creator is responsible for the natural patterns and processes of the Universe. Its current version maintains that a ‘Designer’ must intervene miraculously to accomplish certain natural scientific events. The verdict in the 2005 case Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover School District, et al. (in Harrisburg, PA, U.S.A.) was a landmark of American jurisprudence that prohibited the teaching of ID as science, identified it as religiously based, and forbade long-refuted ‘criticisms of evolution’ from introduction into public school classes. Much of the science of the trial was based on biochemistry; biochemists and other scientists have several important opportunities to improve scientific literacy and science education in American public schools (‘state schools’) by working with teachers, curriculum developers and textbook writers.
(Excerpt) Read more at biochemj.org ...
And much of it was based upon pure conjecture. Please not this old 2005 case, again. The judge had an axe to grind and Penn. is a small state. Look around, why didn’t everyone leap at his “wisdom”? Evidence.
You have to be created before you can evolve.
I know I'd be shaken up myself, but, Fur Shur, I would not have ruled out the possibility that such a thing could exist given the size and age of this universe.
The judge's reach into the utiity and efficacy of what he construed to be religious beliefs went way beyond the needs of the case. That's why he's usually thought of as a fascist, and most likely the reason no one but "pure thought, true beliefs" types keep bringing that case up.
If I remember correctly, the judge was asked by both sides to determine whether ID was religion or science.
That right there should have stopped his attempt to meet their request to rule on what was or was not religion.
The fact he didn't punt on that particular question (like any normal judge would) demonstrated he wasn't capable of judging anymore.
I doubt anyone at all would be citing that decision if the judge had, perhaps, said "Well, chemistry is religious. No one really knows if valence is a fair description of what really happens, or just a handy, but otherwise mystical notation that sometimes coincides with other observations".
We have identified various forces in the universe. Are we sure we have identified all of them?
What if there is an X force that is unmeasurable but creates order out of chaos?
Scientists refusal to consider that another force may be involved because it comes too close to invoking a theistic solution may blind them from discovering the existence of a force that could explain some of the questions regarding probability or rather improbability.
Great post. Well illustrated in this video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc&feature=related
Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview
The “judge’s” decision was written by the ACLU. ‘Nuff said.
That right there should have stopped his attempt to meet their request to rule on what was or was not religion.
The fact he didn't punt on that particular question (like any normal judge would) demonstrated he wasn't capable of judging anymore.
From the article:
Should judges decide what science is?
DI spokesmen and other political supporters of ID criticized the judge for overstepping his intellectual and legal bounds by ruling on whether or not ID was science. But Judge Jones literally had no choice but to rule on whether or not ID was science. The plaintiffs asked him to rule on exactly this, and so did the defence. The TMLC's chief counsel for the defence, Richard Thompson, acknowledged that, like the attorneys for the plaintiffs, the defence had asked the judge to rule on the question of whether ID was science. They staked their whole case on the notion that ID was legitimate science, and that therefore teaching it had a legitimate secular purpose and secular effect, and this outweighed any religious goals that individual board members might have had. The judge did exactly what both sides asked him to do. It is unfortunate for the ID supporters that they did not take that brief more seriously. And it is important to understand that the judge did not decide what is science and what is not. Nobody inside or outside the legal profession wants judges to do that. What the judge did was to rule on what the scientific community considers science, which is quite a different thing. His path was easy in that respect, because the DI and other ID proponents had no support whatsoever from the scientific community, whereas evolution received nothing but the strongest support.
First off you don't decide what is or is not religion, or truly religious. Not your job. End of story. Still, Congress had told us that standard non-profit rates should be offered to churches, synagogues, etc.
Fortunately those are "group events", so all they had to prove was that they were a group, and had rules, scriptures, or something, that they used. No need to examine the scriptures. No need to give nonprofit rates to individuals who thought they were a church.
Still, we'd get complaints that "so and so is not a true religion". Fortunately the constituion prohibits the government from deciding that question.
ACLU doesn't understand that part (and you note another poster says they wrote the decision, and as I recall that's true ~ their lawyer handed it to the judge to sign ~ happens all the time).
In my own opinion the judge stepped off the planet with his decision ~ and subsequently literally everybody, including the ACLU, has ignored it. It's kind of like a turd in a punchbowl ~ should you scoop it out or ignore it. At the moment people simply have their backs turned.
Counsel for the fundies didn't do a good job ~ it was like no one there had ever actually handled a case where the "true religion" (manifest in its guise as "true science") question had been raised. It's a tricky question of course.
Figures 3 and 4). Even The Fundamentals, a series of pamphlets published between 1910 and 1915 to explain and defend Biblical inerrancy, did not target evolution as a major, irreconcilable opponent [12–15]. The situation changed for ‘fundamentalists’ (as they came to be named, after the pamphlets) only after World War I, which destroyed naïve faith in ‘progress’ and launched a search for the cause of such carnage [16]. Fundamentalists blamed the historical field of ‘higher criticism’ of the Bible (which began in Germany) for a loss of faith and then morality in that country. Fearing the same would happen in the U.S., fundamentalists battled more liberal ‘modernists’ for the soul and control of their denominations. The controversy spilled over into the political domain when three-times presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, who had spent his career on nationwide political ‘crusades’, decided that evolution, now widespread with the rise of high schools and biology classes, had been a contributing factor in the loss of Biblical faith and rise of German militarism. He launched his final crusade against evolution in the schools [13,17].
William Jennings Bryan was a big-time Progressive, who wanted to use the power of the government to improve society, and proudly was a leader in four Progressive Constitutional amendments...that have greatly damaged the institutions of American government and society. The anti-evolution crusade has a Progressive origin...and those who call the pro-science posters here "liberals" should know that.
Many scientists are under the impression that science and religion have always been at war over evolution and the age of the Earth, but historians have shown that this was not the case. By the 1910s, Darwin's Origin of Species was over 50 years old and not a topic of major religious controversy (...
First off you don't decide what is or is not religion, or truly religious. Not your job. End of story. Still, Congress had told us that standard non-profit rates should be offered to churches, synagogues, etc.
If you don't want judges deciding what is and what is not science, perhaps you should leave that to scientists.
This case came about when creationists tried to force their religious beliefs into science classes.
It is not a landmark in American jurisprudence.
First of all, that decision is binding on no other party and is arguably not even binding on the Dover School District since the case was not appealed by the new school board.
In any event, no other court or judge is required to give this case even the slightest degree of credibility since there was no appeal and no appellate decision.
The solution, of course, is privatization of K-12 schools. This is only way to end the constant bickering.
* One group would would teach evolution within a framework of a godless worldview.
* Another groups would teach the **exact** same evolution but within a God-centered worldview.
*The last group would teach creationism. I surely wouldn't agree with them but it is their right to do this. Also, if the kid really wanted to move forward in biology, they could take a class at the community college. ( No big deal!)
Evolution is merely one example among hundreds demonstrating that government schools are a First Amendment and freedom of conscience nightmare and should be abolished.
This case came about when creationists tried to force their religious beliefs into science classes.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This case came about because government schools ***fundamentally** are a freedom of conscience and First Amendment nightmare!
It isn’t just evolution. It is hundreds of issues!
Schools must make binary decisions on hundreds of issues. The winner of these decisions gets to trample the freedom of conscience of the other. ( And....We all get to pay for it.)
INTREP
Unfortunately what you ask for would lead to total Balkanization.
I'm afraid that the results would be far less productive than you expect. We are seeing way to much Balkanization now, and you want to remove the single best socializing and acculturating vehicle we have?
Its nice for everyone to march to a different drummer, but that's no way to run a parade.
Judges can't decide whether a certain religious view is "true," but courts can determine whether something is religiously-based. They do it all the time in 1st Amendment cases.
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.