Posted on 12/20/2005 12:12:16 PM PST by truthfinder9
SEATTLE — "The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work," said Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, the nation's leading think tank researching the scientific theory known as intelligent design. “He has conflated Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it.”
“A legal ruling can't change the fact that there is digital code in DNA, it can’t remove the molecular machines from the cell, nor change the fine tuning of the laws of physics,” added West. “The empirical evidence for design, the facts of biology and nature, can't be changed by legal decree."
In his decision, Judge John Jones ruled that the Dover, Pennsylvania school district violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by requiring a statement to be read to students notifying them about intelligent design. Reaching well beyond the immediate legal questions before him, Judge Jones offered wide-ranging and sometimes angry comments denouncing intelligent design and praising Darwinian evolution.
"Judge Jones found that the Dover board violated the Establishment Clause because it acted from religious motives. That should have been the end to the case," said West. "Instead, Judge Jones got on his soapbox to offer his own views of science, religion, and evolution. He makes it clear that he wants his place in history as the judge who issued a definitive decision about intelligent design. This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur."
"Anyone who thinks a court ruling is going to kill off interest in intelligent design is living in another world," continued West. "Americans don't like to be told there is some idea that they aren't permitted to learn about.. It used to be said that banning a book in Boston guaranteed it would be a bestseller. Banning intelligent design in Dover will likely only fan interest in the theory."
"In the larger debate over intelligent design, this decision will be of minor significance," added Discovery Institute attorney Casey Luskin. "As we've repeatedly stressed, the ultimate validity of intelligent design will be determined not by the courts but by the scientific evidence pointing to design.”
Luskin pointed out that the ruling only applies to the federal district in which it was handed down. It has no legal effect anywhere else. The decision is also unlikely to be appealed, since the recently elected Dover school board members campaigned on their opposition to the policy. "The plans of the lawyers on both sides of this case to turn this into a landmark ruling have been preempted by the voters," he said.
"Discovery Institute continues to oppose efforts to mandate teaching about the theory of intelligent design in public schools," emphasized West. "But the Institute strongly supports the freedom of teachers to discuss intelligent design in an objective manner on a voluntary basis. We also think students should learn about both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwin's theory of evolution."
Drawing on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and related disciplines, the scientific theory of intelligent design proposes that some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. Proponents include scientists at numerous universities and science organizations around the world.
It doesn't count if you don't tell anybody about it.
Come on. Where can I find the fantastic news that Humans and Great Apes are not related?
What faith? Evolution is based on scientific evidence, not faith. Unlike ID. If presentation of scientific evidence is an attack, then attack away.
ANd so, what if the judge is a Muslim who wants to spread his religion? The problem is this works both ways. I would rather see the people making the decision, not one man. (and it sounds as if the people would have made the same decision the judge did in this case).
When we get to the point where one group has enough numbers to play our your scenario, it hardly matters anymore, it's going to happen.
susie
The entire argument seems seems to be "it's not science" from what I read here.
At least we agree that taxpayers should get to determine what gets taught in schools. We just disagree on what should be in science classes and what shouldn't be.
Not all theories are "created" equal, and not all theories need to be given equal consideration.
If all theories are to be considered, I guess we should study every creation myth in the history of man and give them all equal time, right?
I also demand that we teach the Subgenius Yeti theory of the origins of humankind and Subgenii. I think it's disgusting what the secular Trevinoists are doing in our public schools. They never teach anything about the word of "Bob" or the Bleeding Head of The World Cup Golfer!
Actually, I have no desire to teach ID. I would like the freedom for it to come up and be discussed. You probably have no idea what it's like teaching evolution in the middle of the Bible belt! It was always touchy (and it wasn't the parents, it was the kids!)
susie
Doesnt matter who placed him on the bench, he shouldnt be dictating what can and cannot be taught in schools. That is up to the School Boards.
It will go down on appeal.
Thats simply preposterous. Learning ID what create ditchdiggers and fry cooks. You bigot.
Dude, I was being facetious. Of course, a person can be very intelligent and believe in any number of untrue things, like you do. Don't worry, it's perfectly normal to be wrong sometimes, and perfectly natural not to want to admit it. I know it's hard to believe, but even I am wrong on occasion. ;)
But I'm not wrong about ID not being science.
That's the difference between science and dogma. Science, when found to be incorrect, changes to fit the facts. Dogma doesn't. ID is just dogma masquerading as theory.
I think you need to recognize a joke when you see it. You sound rather defensive about your little fantasy. Could it be because you're ashamed to admit you might be wrong? Don't worry, we're all wrong sometimes. It's just that when science is found to be wrong, it changes to fit the facts. Religion and dogma don't, and that's the difference.
There is no empirical evidence for the intelligent part of intelligent design.
I don't have a problem with it being discussed. If kids are kept from discussing what comes up in the natural course of inquiry, in a school of all places, that's just wrong and that bothers me too. I just don't think ID or creationism should be taught as part of the curriculum in a science class, because it isn't science, as I said.
If it comes up in the natural course of discussion in a science class, sure, talk about it. But don't call it science.
Anyone who wants to censor speech is wrong to do it. But teaching that creationism is scientific is a lie, disingenuous at best, promoting ignorance at worst.
The court can, of course, decide whether something is unconstitutional or not, which was the matter at hand.
The School Board cannot suddenly decide to teach from a book like, say, "Islam: Convert You Infidels!" without expecting the constitutionality of such a program to come into question.
"Scientific evidence" for evolution posted on this thread alone...
To: truthfinder9
Ah, the creationist spin has begun....
2 posted on 12/20/2005 2:14:29 PM CST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
I tend to agree. Courts really shouldn't enter into what subjects school boards decide will be taught. On that note, IDers shouldn't be dictating what is science when it should be left up to the scientists.
Ummm I dont care whether I am right or wrong. You wrote a deliberate insult, not a joke. You should be ashamed of it.
Dont preach to me about science I am currently studying for my Masters as a Laboratory Technologist. I know the difference.
Peer review is of course the best thing for any subject, regardless of what it is.
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.