Intelligent Design blocked by courts

[HipsterDufus]

Judge rules against 'intelligent design' in science class

From Delia Gallagher and Phil Hirschkorn

CNN

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- A Pennsylvania school district cannot teach in science classes a concept that says some aspects of science were created by a supernatural being, a federal judge has ruled.

In an opinion issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Jones ruled that teaching "intelligent design" would violate the Constitutional separation of church and state.

"We have concluded that it is not [science], and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," Jones writes in his 139-page opinion posted on the court's Web site. (Opinion, pdf)

"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions," Jones writes.

Intelligent design claims the complexity of some systems of nature cannot be explained by evolution but must be attributed to a designer or supernatural being.

The Dover Area School District, about 25 miles from the state capital, sought to become the first in the nation to require high school science teachers to teach the concept of intelligent design as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution.

"Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact," said the statement that the old school board approved in a 6-3 vote in October 2004. "With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind."

That school board mandated the teaching for ninth-grade biology classes and directed school libraries to purchase an alternative textbook, "Of Pandas and People," which advocated the concept. The town has since voted out eight of nine board members.

A lawsuit challenging the policy was brought in December 2004 by 11 parents in conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State last December.

Jones presided over a six-week trial that ended last month. His decision applies only to the Pennsylvania school district.

His decision would block the school district's plan "requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."

Jones says in his ruling that he did not doubt that intelligent design advocates "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors," but he also said scientific experts testified that Darwin's theory "in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."

Jones -- an appointee of President Bush, who backs the teaching of Intelligent Design -- defended his decision in personal terms.

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist court," Jones writes.

"Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on intelligent design, who in combination drove the board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy," he said.

Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said, "Children in public schools deserve top quality science education and freedom from religious indoctrination and today they were granted both."

In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana could not teach creationism because it would "restructure the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint."

[Homicidalheathen]

Finally America shows some common sense.

[Blackmail]

Finally America shows some common sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't really understand though.

Since there is no factual conclusion for the beginning of all existence, then why is the big band THEORY allowed but another THEORY not allowed? I understand that there is more scientific evidence behind the big bang theory, but until anything is proven, why not allow all theories to be explored in Schools?

[Scary Guy]

I don't really understand though.

Since there is no factual conclusion for the beginning of all existence, then why is the big band THEORY allowed but another THEORY not allowed?  I understand that there is more scientific evidence behind the big bang theory, but until anything is proven, why not allow all theories to be explored in Schools?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because if god created the universe, we have no proof of it, meaning it too is only a theory. But it's a religious based one. Seperation of church and state exists for a very important reason. If they want their kids to learn that, let them teach it themselves at home or in Church.

Most of science is actually theory especailly as certain facts are constantly proven wrong and it changes how we look at the science entirely.

[Shade Everdark]

I think we need to take a moment, again, to differentiate between the way scientists use the term 'theory' and the way laypeople (that's you and me) tend to use it.

From dictionary.com:

Laypersons' definition: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Scientists' definition: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

For further reading, I'd suggest looking up the word theory on Wikipedia.

[The_Dark]

We also need to drop the myth of Seperation of Church and State. We don;t have that. This is not France. What we have is the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

ID doesn't name God... Nor does it name any one religion. How does it go against the 1st Amendment?

Also, they didn;t want to teach ID. They wanted a one paragraph disclaimer read to the students at the begining of the class on evolution that explained that it was a Theory and that there are other theorys out there. ID was named as one example.

[Rozzlyn]

Because if god created the universe, we have no proof of it, meaning it too is only a theory.  But it's a religious based one.  Seperation of church and state exists for a very important reason.  If they want their kids to learn that, let them teach it themselves at home or in Church.

Most of science is actually theory especailly as certain facts are constantly proven wrong and it changes how we look at the science entirely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Indeed.

Science requires constant learning while religion advocates blind belief. The theory of evolution is a theory, true, and a scientific theory can only be mostly right based on what is currently known, ie, facts. Religious theory is suspect to criticism because all it requires is beliefs and half-truths without facts to back it up beyond what is seen with the naked eye.

Example: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp

If you get a headache trying to read it, that's because they basically just said "we know dinosaurs didn't exist millions of years ago because no humans were alive then. All we have a dinosaur bones that don't have a date of expiration stamped on them."

Oh, and this is not a joke site, like landoverbaptist.com, either. They're totally serious and they're totally building a "creationist museum" that ignores things like dating things with radioactivity and offering crackpot pseudoscience "theories" without fact, merely specutation and broad generalisations to back it up.

[HipsterDufus]

Also, they didn;t want to teach ID.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In this article, it does say teach. Sources to the contrary are welcome.

[The_Dark]

nevermind.. I am thinking of the cases in Georgia and Kansas.

[HipsterDufus]

nevermind.. I am thinking of the cases in Georgia and Kansas.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, I did a quick google news search and we're both half-right. The teachers were required to read a 4 line statement about ID as an alternative and the name of a book if the kids wanted more info on it. Turns out one of their biggest slips was having a church fund some donated copies of the book.

[The_Dark]

See, i don't have a problem with that... except the Church funding.

[Homicidalheathen]

Your all so smart your starting to scare me. :confused

[Fierce Critter]

When I was in elementary school in the 70's and being taught about science, one of my teachers said something to the effect, "some people believe god created man" before plunging into the text on evolution.

That's all. Nothing else. No in-depth discussion of it, just acknowledged a fact - "some people believe something other than what I'm about to teach you."

I didn't have a problem with that then (what 9 year old would?) and I don't now. It wasn't made a part of the curriculum. Just an acknowledgement.

I'm liberal, and open-minded. But I don't see the harm in something like I just described.

[HipsterDufus]

When I was in elementary school in the 70's and being taught about science, one of my teachers said something to the effect, "some people believe god created man" before plunging into the text on evolution.

That's all. Nothing else. No in-depth discussion of it, just acknowledged a fact - "some people believe something other than what I'm about to teach you."

I didn't have a problem with that then (what 9 year old would?) and I don't now. It wasn't made a part of the curriculum. Just an acknowledgement.

I'm liberal, and open-minded. But I don't see the harm in something like I just described.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They did a similar disclaimer in my high school. Despite my decidedly anti-religion stance most of the time, I was fine with it. However, the key in what they said at my high school was that the idea of God creating everything was a religious perspective and we were in science class to discuss science, not religion. The problem that I have with ID is that it is religion that they are trying to pass off as science. The book that the school board recommended Of Pandas and People actually did a global search and replace. It searched for the word "creationism" and replaced it with "intelligent design" 150 times. In the court hearings, the lawyers even got the ID "scientists" to admit that, by their own definition of science, astrology could be taught in schools.

[Scary Guy]

What is Scientology then? Religion based around science is what I thought.

As far as Astrology goes, it's a bastard science, but more related to science than ID I think.

[n0Mad]

Penn & Teller have a show on Showtime called "Bullshit". It's one of my favorite shows. More people should watch it. It's definately not unbiased by any means of the word, but it's certainly humorous. Season one (which I have on DVD, still need to get season two) has an episode on Intelligent Design.

[Scary Guy]

Penn & Teller have a show on Showtime called "Bullshit".  It's one of my favorite shows.  More people should watch it.  It's definately not unbiased by any means of the word, but it's certainly humorous.  Season one (which I have on DVD, still need to get season two) has an episode on Intelligent Design.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unbiased my ass, it slants to the left pretty far (but not to an extreme level).

Yet it does tell it like it is and is one of my favorite shows.

[phee]

Unbiased my ass, it slants to the left pretty far (but not to an extreme level).

Yet it does tell it like it is and is one of my favorite shows.

I just watched one last night... and Penn actually said "We are extrememly biased, but we also do not lie" so yes very self admitted bias... but having said that, I love the show

[Blackmail]

Indeed.

Science requires constant learning while religion advocates blind belief.  The theory of evolution is a theory, true, and a scientific theory can only be mostly right based on what is currently known, ie, facts.  Religious theory is suspect to criticism because all it requires is beliefs and half-truths without facts to back it up beyond what is seen with the naked eye.

Example: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp

If you get a headache trying to read it, that's because they basically just said "we know dinosaurs didn't exist millions of years ago because no humans were alive then.  All we have a dinosaur bones that don't have a date of expiration stamped on them."

Oh, and this is not a joke site, like landoverbaptist.com, either.  They're totally serious and they're totally building a "creationist museum" that ignores things like dating things with radioactivity and offering crackpot pseudoscience "theories" without fact, merely specutation and broad generalisations to back it up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But there are Christian Scientist who have written about the science behind ID, Dr. Norman Geisler and Patrick Glyph come to mind. I am not saying I believe it, but they make a scientific case for ID. It isn't just about blind faith, to assume that is being as uninformed as the people you purport are doing the same.

[n0Mad]

Let me repeat what I said,

It's definately not unbiased by any means of the word

Notice the double negative? (Used correctly I might add.) Not unbiased. Meaning it is biased. They make no effort to hide their Libertarian views. A lot I agree with, but there's a lot I don't. I take the show with a grain of salt and a healthy dose of side-splitting laughter.

[Scary Guy]

Let me repeat what I said,

Notice the double negative?  (Used correctly I might add.)  Not unbiased.  Meaning it is biased.  They make no effort to hide their Libertarian views.  A lot I agree with, but there's a lot I don't.  I take the show with a grain of salt and a healthy dose of side-splitting laughter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

See thats what threw me off, no one uses those correctly.

[Guest Game of Chance]

What is Scientology then?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From Wikipedia:

The "Hidden Truth" about the nature of the universe is taught to the most advanced Scientologists in a series of courses known as the Advanced Levels. These are the levels above "Clear", and their contents are held in strict confidence within Scientology. The most advanced of all are the eight Operating Thetan levels, for which the initiate needs to be thoroughly prepared. The highest level, OT VIII, is only disclosed at sea, on the Scientology cruise ship Freewinds.

In the OT levels, Hubbard describes a variety of traumas commonly experienced in past lives. He explains how to reverse the effects of such traumas by doing various Scientology processes. Among these advanced teachings, one episode that is revealed to those who reach OT level III has been widely remarked upon in the press: the story of Xenu, the galactic tyrant who first kidnapped certain individuals who were deemed "excess population" and loaded these individuals into space planes for transport to the site of extermination, the planet of Teegeeack (Earth). These space planes were supposedly exact copies of Douglas DC-8s except with rocket engines. He then stacked hundreds of billions of these frozen victims around Earth's volcanoes 75 million years ago before blowing them up with hydrogen bombs and brainwashing them with a "three-D, super colossal motion picture" for 36 days, telling them lies of what they are and what the universe should be like and telling them that they are 3 different things: 'Jesus, God, and The Devil.' The traumatized thetans subsequently clustered around human bodies because they watched the motion picture together, making them think they are all the same thing, in effect acting as invisible spiritual parasites known as "body thetans" that can only be removed using advanced Scientology techniques. Xenu is allegedly imprisoned in a mountain by a force field powered by an eternal battery. He is said to be still alive today.

and

Hubbard was repeatedly accused of adopting a religious façade for Scientology in order for the organization to maintain tax-exempt status and avoid prosecution for false medical claims. These accusations continue to the present day, bolstered by numerous accounts from Hubbard's fellow science-fiction authors that on various occasions he stated that the way to get rich was to start a religion.

[Rozzlyn]

What is Scientology then?  Religion based around science is what I thought.

As far as Astrology goes, it's a bastard science, but more related to science than ID I think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not exactly.

I picked up a couple of Scientology books at the dollar store in Cadillac (on the 2/$1 paperback rack) and while there's some science in there, it's mostly pseudo-science.

[The_Dark]

You were in CAdillac and didn;t stop by and say Hi?

[Rozzlyn]

Unbiased my ass, it slants to the left pretty far (but not to an extreme level).

Yet it does tell it like it is and is one of my favorite shows.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They learn left on some things, but they're VERY anarcho-Capitalist and right-wing on others. They even admit in a couple of episodes that they come off as very anti-hippie.

Scott loves that show and claims Penn Gilette is a genius and should be president. I like it enough to feel it's interesting enough to make most people think about these topics, but they should still balance it out with some NPR.