Dispute over evolution goes on trial in U.S. court

Baltimore Sun ^ | September 26, 2005 | Arthur Hirsch

[Cincinatus' Wife]

A Pennsylvania school district's use of "intelligent design" in its high school biology curriculum goes on trial in federal court today in the nation's first legal challenge to the idea, which contends that evolutionary theory alone does not explain how life on Earth took shape.

The lawsuit, brought by 11 parents in the Dover Area School District, attacks as unconstitutional the year-old policy of telling ninth-grade biology students that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution "is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence." School officials also recommend a book on intelligent design, or ID.

The plaintiffs, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, argue that the policy -- which does not require students to study intelligent design -- serves religious, not secular ends, violating the First Amendment.

ID proponents say scientists can look at life forms and identify the work of a controlling "intelligence," although ID advocates are not specific about the nature of that force. While they do not reject all evolutionary theory, ID proponents argue that it incorrectly insists life took shape purely through a mindless process.

[Tarpon]

Simple question -- How did judges get this smart, about everything.

I notice they did fine work in New Orleans protecting the fishes, didn't they? Oh wait, they didn't.

Judges need to get back to reading law books and leave the public square.

[Servant of the 9]

You cannot force someone to believe as you do. In spite of years and years of evolution theory in public schools, the majority of people just don't buy it. I wonder why?

Maybe because they aren't bright enough.

Evolution is Science. It has nothing to do with belief, for or against. It has to do with knowledge.

Religion/Creationism/Inteligent Design is based on belief.
I wonder why the belief people can't get everyone to?
Snake Oil and Faith Healing.

So9

[Vive ut Vivas]

And creationists want to change the definition of science to keep it from limiting itself to empirical proof. You have no idea how much the notion of them succeeding frightens me.

[Vaquero]

yes....I agree they are a danger to civilization. between them and the 'Islamic world wide threat', we are looking at a possible return to dark ages like those that followed the collapse of the Roman empire. Not a pretty picture.

[DesertSapper]

So I take it that being an ACLU ally doesn't bother you? I know it would me.

As for porn, I'm not sure the link but I'm not against porn if it is of and for adults. I would say - no, it doesn't bother me. Your point is moot.

What Rush does is his decision, not mine. However, I would venture to guess that his ACLU ally at least gave him pause.

Uh . . . I wasn't trying to prove anything, I asked a question of you Darwinists: "...does it not bother you that your "side" of this issue is headed by "the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State"?

. . . still waiting for your answer . . .

[Vaquero]

You cannot force someone to believe as you do. In spite of years and years of evolution theory in public schools, the majority of people just don't buy it. I wonder why? This may be true in remote counties populated by cousin fornicators, but I do not see this majority of yours, in most of the country. Nice try

[mlc9852]

If you assume human beings evolved from some lower life form, then I would love to see your "evidence". Except there isn't any.

[mlc9852]

That's right - those who believe in God are ignorant and those who believe in science are brillant. I think God is smarter to you.

[DesertSapper]

HA HA. I have to agree with this one.

Thus, my boys are home-schooled.

[Vaquero]

Uh . . . I wasn't trying to prove anything, I asked a question of you Darwinists: "...does it not bother you that your "side" of this issue is headed by "the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State"? . . . still waiting for your answer . Just because a deplorable organization(ACLU) agrees on one point and not necessarily for the same reasons,is no reason for me to suddenly loose my reasoning power and believe in fantasy. you present a flawed analogy.

[RadioAstronomer]

Thanks. I personally believe this trial is very important.

[highball]

. . . still waiting for your answer . . .

Then you obviously didn't read my post. No, it doesn't bother me that the ACLU happens to be right on this one.

Your argument lacks substance, because it's based on a fallacy. It's known as the fallacy of "Guilt By Association." Just because the ACLU's usually wrong doesn't mean that they can't be right once in a while. As they are on this issue.

Your argument doesn't say anything at all about the relative merits of evoultion, it just changes the subject. Hardly convincing.

[DesertSapper]

You are reading waaaaay too deep into my question. It was simple . . . does it bother you?

As the whole question is being ignored, forget that I asked it. This politician-like dancing around the question is amusing but a waste of time.

May God the Creator bless even the Darwinists!

[Dimensio]

If you assume human beings evolved from some lower life form, then I would love to see your "evidence". Except there isn't any.

It's one thing to dispute what has been presented as evidence. It's another to outright lie and claim that nothing has been put forth.

[Dimensio]

You are reading waaaaay too deep into my question. It was simple . . . does it bother you?

The answer was no. You apparently don't like the explanation given for the answer, however, so you ignore the fact that your question has been answered until someone just answers "no" without any further comment, allowing you to gloat over some perceived victory.

As the whole question is being ignored, forget that I asked it.

Your question has been answered. You are a liar for claiming otherwise.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The creationists on FR have been linking to darwinism-watch. Guilt by association?

[highball]

Your fallacy has not been ignored. The bogus question has been asked and answered many times.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html

[DesertSapper]

Wow. I ask a question about a Freeper Darwinist's feelings about the ACLU alliance and I get this: "Your argument lacks substance, because it's based on a fallacy."

It wasn't an "argument" it was a valid question. My answer would have been a resounding "YES" as associations CAN and sometimes DO show more than coincidence. Whether or not that applies here remains to be seen.

[furball4paws]

So, mlc, now that you are a year older, have your garnered any more wisdom?

[Dimensio]

My answer would have been a resounding "YES" as associations CAN and sometimes DO show more than coincidence. Whether or not that applies here remains to be seen.

Since you can't demonstrate it, though (because there's nothing more than the ACLU happening to take a position that is correct), you try to infer it through cheap and sleazy innuendo.