Posted on 12/20/2005 8:16:05 AM PST by GSlob
HARRISBURG, Pa. - "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.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Good. So your hypothetical pupil will have to find a theology class outside of Dover School District sphere. Since any church there would be only too happy to accommodate such a pupil in its sunday classes, I do not see much inconvenience. But then, I'm an atheist.
The proponents of ID being religiously motivated has nothing to do with whether or not it is scientific.
Evolution as an explanation of the multitude of species begs the question of origin of life such that most young students who have been exposed to it think it covers the issue of origins.
ID contains the only current scientific hypothesis for the origin of life.
Yeah, the decision applies to the defendants and the school district. Another school district and other persons could probably go ahead with agitating for ID.
Apparently many think learning is simply giving out information.
susie
Apologies, I'm doing too many things at once!
Merry Christmas to everyone, even those I disagree with. :)
susie
Don't be too cocky here. The Dover group is actually fairly lucky that the judge didn't throw them in jail. It seems that they _lied_ early on in the case about their motivations, and some factual matters.
I would _strongly urge_ ID people to not use this case as a jumping board, precisely because we cannot be tied to people who lie to promote their cause. I have full confidence in ID, as well as Creationism, but I have to agree with this judge that the Dover board was engaged in some fishy business with regards to this suit.
ID is not scientific, per court decision and per common logic. Where would be the life origins of "intelligent designer"? It is called "reductio ad infinitum" fallacy.
Hah! If learning is only going over what has already passed into the body of knowledge, then schools are seats of learning. Schools are libraries first and foremost, but at some point a student will have drained the books and will be on his own--then learning (not just individual bringing up to speed, but advancement of mankind) begins.
"Evolution as an explanation of the multitude of species begs the question of origin of life such that most young students who have been exposed to it think it covers the issue of origins."
And that is exactly the point where a good Biology teacher should step in and explain that science cannot provide a REASON for evolutionary mechanisms and that the respective student should ask his or her parents about that.
Science is lot like "connect the dots" - it provides a hypothesis about what the lines in the picture might look like. What it does not provide is a statement about the painter or his intentions.
Therefore it is essential to point out to all students before discussing evolution that the theory of evolution is no more than the sum of certain mechanisms, such as natural selection - the same way calculus is a set of mathematic tools.
A teacher who tries to prove God's existence through evolution (which is basically what ID does) is the same type of fool as a teacher with a radical atheist agenda who tries to prove that God does not exist by quoting Darwin.
Yes, I am in favor of teaching evolution in schools. No, I'm firmly against presenting ID in Biology classes. But I also believe that every single teacher should be instructed, if a student should ask WHY there's evolution, to reply along the lines of: "That is not a question science can answer. Science doesn't cover the "why". You should discuss that with your parents instead!".
If every teacher acted thus - there would be no problem whatsoever with Darwin and the theory of evolution. That is exactly the modus operandi we should strive for - and NOT teaching ID in schools.
To believe the only motive for advocating ID in schools was to present an "alternative explanation", is naive. No such thing is needed. Purpose is no scientific category. Or does any of you really think a Physics teacher should discuss WHY such a thing as nuclear fission exists. To kill all infidels? Or should we also teach animal-rights-activist bullcrap in Biology, just because it is an alternative view?
And that is also why the judge is right about the discussion being dishonest.
Judge John Jones III, a Republican, was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002.
Yes, and he should have ordered the poor bastards formerly of Dover School Board to evolve. High time, too.
But that would take to much "real" work on behalf of some "walking, talking, eating primate" to come up with scientific Facts and observations to properly explain biology! LOL
:)
I've always believed that Evolution is based on Hypothesis with a lack of proper observation (that would be documented through out the ages).
Whereas, If I totally rely on historical writings/documentaries, I could (if needed) properly support all written observations in the Bible.
Thus being said, I too agree that (1) If there is going to be a public School system, they should teach a simple line of basics: Science can be taught thru Physics, Chemistry, biology, health, anatomy and much more without ever bringing up the "Evolution Theory"... One may however be inclined to use the "term" evolved [Etymology: Latin evolvere to unroll, from].
I also believe (2) This is why Homeschooling should be more accurately supported by all people.. because that is where parents need to be encouraged to answer those questions on Evolution vs Creation. If parents are encouraged to Home school their children (even if it's after public school), maybe then we can pull the responsibility of Theorism Learning off the shoulders of our paid teachers!?
Purpose is no scientific category
Without insult to your individual intellect, I couldn't have said it better. You are So right with that statement!
You might be right about the defendants, but I still think the judge allowed his personal anti religious bias effect his judicial conduct.
The religious motives of the defendants should not have been a subject of discussion.
The comments of the judge look to me very hateful toward religious faith in general.
Please see a doctor.
A snappy comeback does not represent a credible argument against my assertions.
Judge ruled against a strawman, not ID. It was obvious from his bizarre ruling.
Have you read the whole ruling [available online]? I have, and I do not consider his ruling bizarre in the least. Quite the opposite, I consider it right and proper. If anything, by going into a long consideration of the nature and history of ID and concluding that whatever else it might be, science it is not, the judge did yeoman's work for other judges who might have to sort out future cases. ID belongs in a seminary, or in a sunday school. It has no place in the science class of a public school.
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.