Posted on 09/22/2005 8:25:42 PM PDT by Crackingham
A court case that begins Monday in Pennsylvania will be the first to determine whether it is legal to teach a controversial idea called intelligent design in public schools. Intelligent design, often referred to as ID, has been touted in recent years by a small group of proponents as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution. ID proponents say evolution is flawed. ID asserts that a supernatural being intervened at some point in the creation of life on Earth.
Scientists counter that evolution is a well-supported theory and that ID is not a verifiable theory at all and therefore has no place in a science curriculum. The case is called Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Prominent scientists Thursday called a teleconference with reporters to say that intelligent design distorts science and would bring religion into science classrooms.
"The reason this trial is so important is the Dover disclaimer brings religion straight into science classrooms," said Alan Leshner, the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and executive publisher of the journal Science. "It distorts scientific standards and teaching objectives established by not only state of Pennsylvania but also leading scientific organizations of the United States."
"This will be first legal challenge to intelligent design and we'll see if they've been able to mask the creationist underpinnings of intelligent design well enough so that the courts might allow this into public school," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), which co-hosted the teleconference.
AAAS is the world's largest general science society and the NCSE is a nonprofit organization committed to helping ensure that evolution remains a part of public school curriculums.
The suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of concerned parents after Dover school board officials voted 6-3 last October to require that 9th graders be read a short statement about intelligent design before biology lessons on evolution. Students were also referred to an intelligent design textbook to learn more information about the controversial idea. The Dover school district earlier this month attempted to prevent the lawsuit from going forward, but a federal judge ruled last week that the trial would proceed as scheduled. The lawsuit argues that intelligent design is an inherently religious argument and a violation of the First Amendment that forbids state-sponsored schools from funding religious activities.
"Although it may not require a literal reading of Genesis, [ID] is creationism because it requires that an intelligent designer started or created and intervened in a natural process," Leshner said. "ID is trying to drag science into the supernatural and redefine what science is and isn't."
Let's see, your computer analogy proven false, you use bad data, and you try to ignore it when it is pointed out.
A true scientist.
LOL
DK
Talk with each other if you like.
I'm perfectly happy to point out when you are disasterously wrong! It seems to happen most often when you delve into philosophy. A little rusty, eh?
There are many counter examples, face and voice recognition being two of them.
Humans aren't behind machines yet. Although I agree with Stephen Hawking that modifications to humans may be important WRT the electronic revolution. Weird times my friend!
Some people worship the clock cycle and come out with a zero.
Of course, computers are:
Intelligently Designed.
LOL
DK
I did notice that the argument was reductionist and left out so much data on what the body does, in order to fit the bias of the arguers. Things like balance, vision, tactile information, etc. Why do you think they did that?
It appears the reductionists' argument is that higher tiers (such as meaning and universals) are merely epiphenomenons of "matter in all its motions".
Concerning the brain as the governor of the body, here are a few points for your correspondents and Lurkers:
2. As the McConnell experiments have shown - there is more at work than the brain: take a flatworm, teach him to react to stimulus and then chop him into two parts. Both parts will regenerate into a flatworm, but only one of them had the half with the original brain. But use the same stimulus on both flatworms, and they will react with the same memory.
3. Put a hundred army ants on a flat surface and they will walk in a circle until they die of exhaustion. But gather up a million of them and they will form a colony, conduct raids, keep a geometry, a calendar and a stable temperature in the nest.
But, as the RWP has pointed me to (indirectly of course), what is the heart of this controversy.
What is the suit about?
>>In October 2004, the Dover board voted 6-3 to require teachers to read a brief statement about intelligent design to students before classes on evolution. The statement says Darwin’s theory is “not a fact” and has inexplicable “gaps,” and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information.<<
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9503392/
The teacher has to say Darwin's theory is a theory. If you want to know about intelligent design, there's the book, have at it outside class. They don't have to teach intelligent design. Just that Darwin's theory has warts.
If that can cause the downfall of Darwinism, it is not a very good theory.
Thanks Perfessor!
DK
The establishment clause does not concern the contemporary drama of secular humanism enthusiasts trying to remove religion in general or the mere discussion of religious themes and topics from the public realm. This case represents an idiotic misunderstanding of law.
I, too, am hopeful that Roberts will be a conservative voice on the Court ... with one caveat. I would have preferred that the President nominate Scalia to be Chief Justice, if only to reward his absolutely unfailing loyalty to original intent.
Either Ker Than is an incompetent who doesn't do his homework, or he thinks people are unaware that Darwin, himself, dragged science into the supernatural. Who does he think he's kidding?
"Origin of man now proved. -- Metaphysics must flourish. - He who understands baboon would do more toward Metaphysics than Locke." --- [Charles] Darwin, Notebook M, August 16, 1838 As quoted front and center by Michael T Ghiselin in his book Metaphysics and the Origin of Species
The textbook the publicly funded school is endorsing is "Of Pandas and People" and there exists testimony from prior litigation that the author of that particular book used "creationism" and "intelligent design" interchangeably. In the testimony, the author asserts only agency as intelligent cause.
Reading between the lines here (since I haven't read the book), that means the author did not present phenomenon along with agent as alternative types of intelligent cause. Without that, the court is most likely (IMHO) to consider the endorsement of the textbook as prohibited under prior Supreme Court decisions vis-a-vis the Establishment clause, especially Lemon in not serving a secular purpose.
Looking at it from the Supreme Court level (should it be appealed) - there is a possibility that Dover would prevail since the Supremes need to clarify their own conflicting decisions on the First Amendment. The consensus of the court is that Lemon causes confusion.
The decision in the 7th Kaufman v McCaughtry finds that atheism is a religion (see especially page 8) - based on previous Supreme Court rulings including Lemon.
Should this Dover case be appealed (and/or Kaufman) - then the Supremes will be faced with defining when atheism is religion and thus whether refusing the referral to a textbook such as this one would constitute the endorsement of atheism as the state religion.
IOW, the court will need to clarify what it meant by “secular purpose” if it keeps Lemon or establish a new test for "what is religion" and what actions constitute the establishment of one v. what actions would prevent the free exercise of one.
Whew, that was a mouthful before 7:30.
Thanks for outlining the actual case stuff, the media is so lame about that!
DK
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.