Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Judge rules against 'intelligent design' in science class

Sarek

Vuhlkansu Wihs
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.

Jones described the school board's decision as "breathtaking inanity."

"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."

'Of Pandas and People'
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: Not an 'activist judge'
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."

A 'troubling decision'
Richard Thompson, a spokesman for the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center, which aided the school district, called Jones' verdict a "troubling decision."

"The founders of this country would be astonished at the thought that this simple curriculum change established religion in violation of the Constitution that they drafted," Thompson said.

Jones said of the defendants, "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose" behind the intelligent design policy.

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."


Finally, chalk one up to open minded free thinking America. I for one am sick of the moral majority shoving it's agenda down my throat. I hope we hear a lot more people demanding that the concept of seperation of church and state be upheld.
 
Now now, this isn't about wether or not he exists. This is more about let the schools teach evolution and the church handle ID.

I don't see public schools demanding that evolution be taught in church.
 
thank god that someone in the US legal system has their head screwed on right.

i can assure you that no 'supernatural creator' had a hand in my existence. Evolution, and evolution only, has made us Pandas the fine, upstanding, and magnificent beasts we are today.
 
The problem with teaching ID in science class....

....is that ID isn't science. Ask any specialist in the philosophy of science. Or you could just trust the hordes of biologists and science teachers who've stated so.
 
Panda said:
thank god that someone in the US legal system has their head screwed on right.

i can assure you that no 'supernatural creator' had a hand in my existence. Evolution, and evolution only, has made us Pandas the fine, upstanding, and magnificent beasts we are today.

Sorry... thank who?
 
That's half my problem with the whole intelligent design theory. Most who seem to spout it act like there should be no free will or the ability of anyone to remain open minded and come to their own conclusion on what they want to believe.

The sad thing is, after finding this article; I've started reading more about the issue. It seems like there's quite a few educational institutions out there that are willing to teach intelligent design along with evolution. But there are also a lot of wing nut religious types that demand that ID completely replace any curriculum regarding evolution. And sadly, we have a nut job in high office that wants to shove it as far down the public’s throat as he possibly can. But then again, it’s becoming pretty obvious lately that the Bush administration doesn’t really care about individual free will or personal privacy for that matter.
 
I agree that they should be seperate. The main point I was making was that there seems to be the will to compromise from an edjucational standpoint. But it's the religious right that's saying no, you'll teach what we want because intelligent design is the only true way.
 
The Question said:
Sorry... thank who?

.....:pissed:I can still believe in a God, and believe in science at the same time...I just don't think he was clever enough to have personally designed me....
 
You know, I might have to re evaluate this whole intelligent design thing. I can't for a minute believe that evolution would allow some of the retarded posters like Nacchisrevenge to remain in the gene pool. Therefore, there must be a divine being and this is his way of making a joke.
 
Holy shit I missed a serious discussion on TK.

:scared:

Well, I think it is ridiculous that the two cannot be taught sided by side. I guess the issue with religion is if you are going to teach intelligent design, who's religious beliefs are you going to teach? Christian? Well, then you are excluding minority groups that might object to that. With science the main school of thought is the Big Bang and evolution. There aren't as many divisions in science as there could be if you start introducing various religious beliefs.

The silly thing to me is how both sides can't see how they both need each other.

Science does show an extraordinary idea of evolution, which I do believe happens. It also shows that the universe is expanding, something else I do believe.

What science doesn't do is provide further explaination of how and why the Big Bang occured. Saying that it just happened isn't enough. Something existed before the Big Bang, and events had to happen for it to take place. Now, whether it was intentional or accidental who knows, but I would bet on Intelligent design before accidental.

So if it were intelligent design, then there very well could be a God, which I do believe. The problem is that God certainly doesn't behave in the way we are generally taught. We are taught that he is loving and rewards us with heaven when we die, but if you look around, the Earth, a very imperfect place created by a 'perfect being', is actually very harsh to some of his own followers. We like to blame 'nature' when tidal waves or floods kill people, but who is responsible for creating nature? And on top of that, God has a bad temper. Not only trashing Sodom and Gamora, he also flooded the Earth and killed everyone on it but Noah and his crew. Innocent people, women and children, animals, all died. If you were to take a human, and make that person responsible for all of that kind of destruction, how would you describe him? Can a creature really be so good and yet homicidal at the same time? Why tollerate Satan if God can destroy him? What kind of ego does it take for such lesser beings as ourselves to worship something that has the power to create everything we see around us? Why would he even pay attention?

I think about his all the time. I generally feel there is a higher power out there, but it isn't as interested in us all the time as we like to think. I tend to believe that something God-like put some ingredients in a pot and stirred it. Where we are now is where the stew has settled. Now you've god intelligent design and evolution. Kind of like God designed the universe to be self-sufficient, which means evolution has to happen.

And what does a creator with that kind of power do? Does it stop creating? I don't think so. Does it have the time to overlook everything and make sure it runs well? I dont think so. I kind of see it as God created the Garden and left the Angels to tend it. But to think he hasn't moved on to create other Gardens is ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as people who think the Earth is the center of the universe and that there is no other life on other planets because it isn't explicitly said so in the Bible or Koran.

There has to be a a merge of both, but I don't think we have enough answers from either side to say of what should be brought in yet.
 
The concept of intelligent design is flawed from the get-go because, it creates a paradox. If the universe is to complex to be created randomly, then the intelligent force that created it must be even more complex, thus could also not have been created randomly. Therefore, God has a God, who has a God, on-infinitum.
 
Top