Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’

[TwinCrier]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/

Evolutionist must be breathing a sign of relief now that their theory will be free from criticism once again. So much for free speech and open minds.

 

[Metaphor]

So much for free speech and open minds.

Aye....

 

[random_guy]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/

Evolutionist must be breathing a sign of relief now that their theory will be free from criticism once again. So much for free speech and open minds.

Do you understand science? Theories must be able to stand on their own. ID is nothing more than a criticism of evolution with no evidence to back it up. The trial wasn't about whether or not evolution was correct, it was whether or not ID was scientific.

Perhaps you should read this part by the judge appointed by Bush.

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.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. 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 ID Policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

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. 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 ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

​

ID was religiously motivated, Creationism dressed up under a new name. Feel free to teach ID in philosophy or humanities, not science. I wonder how many people that'll mention this is the result of censorship and activist judges actually followed the trial.

 

[Smidlee]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/

Evolutionist must be breathing a sign of relief now that their theory will be free from criticism once again. So much for free speech and open minds.

This isn't very surprising since those on the school board was vote out of office so this could have cost the judge the same fate if he back ID. This is how politics works. You can't expect a judge to care on an issue when the voters don't. In a way, I really don't blame him. Public schools isn't worth the effort as they are driven too much by politics anyways.

 

[Deamiter]

Free speech? It doesn't in the least violate free speech! People are still free to say and believe whatevery they want.

Of course, when my child's history teacher starts teaching him or her about how the Holocaust was all a big hoax... then I'll expect the teacher to be fired. If the school board votes to include denial of the Holocaust as part of the curriculum, I'll take them to court.

It's the same with ID/Creationism. Nobody said you can't believe it or talk about it, or even preach it. But to teach it in a science class... I'm sorry, but it's got to be science.

I do applaud the Christian, Republican judge who Bush appointed. It makes me think your country may indeed have a future in the biological and medical sciences.

 

[PaladinValer]

As a future educator, allow me to affirm what Deamiter has said to be true and fact.

Nice post too, I must say

 

[shernren]

It's very easy to thump tables and demand rights. It may be hard to exercise those rights if ever they are granted.

How would you construct a credible equal-time ID / evolution science curriculum?


How do you conduct a scientifically verifiable, positive-hypothesis ID experiment? Maybe not at the high-school level, but how about at the uni level?

Can ID provide scientific explanations for phenomena evolution cannot explain that possess predictive power and practical applications?

Until ID proponents can answer these questions (which are fundamental to setting up any sort of science curriculum) they simply do not deserve classroom time. I think it is actually better for the ID movement, in a way, that they should not be allowed any teaching time in the classroom. This sort of decision gives IDism the aura of the mysterious, forbidden and government-censored conspiracy that helps convince gullible people (not that all ID proponents are, but some indeed are) that there really is something here and the only reason the government is hiding it is because it actually has some merit. Should ID ever come into the open about what it actually is ... I don't think it will survive 20 years.

 

[Smidlee]

This sort of decision gives IDism the aura of the mysterious, forbidden and government-censored conspiracy that helps convince gullible people (not that all ID proponents are, but some indeed are) that there really is something here and the only reason the government is hiding it is because it actually has some merit. Should ID ever come into the open about what it actually is ... I don't think it will survive 20 years.

Well that's be honest, most Americans know our court system has become a complete joke. With higher and higher taxes Many American (as I'm for one) feels these cases are a waste of time and money. Most of ACLU cases are totally worthless and back nothing but troublemakers. ACLU is fighting over something stupid like a cross on public land while we got drugs and crime loose in the streets.

 

[random_guy]

Well that's be honest, most Americans know our court system has become a complete joke. With higher and higher taxes Many American (as I'm for one) is a waste of time and money. Most of ACLU cases are totally worthless and back nothing but troublemakers. ACLU is fighting over something stupid like a cross on public land while we got drugs and crime loose in the streets.

I don't know. The ACLU fights for rights of all Americans. They aren't some Godless organization out to get Christianity.

From http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16254res20050302.html

September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show.

August 4, 2005: ACLU helps free a New Mexico street preacher from prison.

May 25, 2005: ACLU sues Wisconsin prison on behalf of a Muslim woman who was forced to remove her headscarf in front of male guards and prisoners.

February 2005: ACLU of Pennsylvania successfully defends the right of an African American Evangelical church to occupy a church building purchased in a predominantly white parish.

December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.

November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.

November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.

August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.

July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.

June 9, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska files a lawsuit on behalf of a Muslim woman barred from a public pool because she refused to wear a swimsuit.

June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.

May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.

March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks.

February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.

October 28, 2002: ACLU of Pennsylvania files discrimination lawsuit over denial of zoning permit for African American Baptist church.

July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.

April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.

January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to run "anti-Santa" ads in Boston subways.

Seems like they help anyone who's rights have been infringed. People tend to not see that they're truly non-biased. As long as someone's real rights are violated, they'll help that person, even if that person hates the ACLU like Rush Limbaugh.

 

[Smidlee]

Even some of these are worthless. No doubt ACLU can pick a handful (even then doubtful) out of the many lame ones. I sure even an extremely evil person does some good.

Still the judge here referred to the 1987 case knowing very well this case had nothing to do with science as Dariwinism had already totally dominate biology even with the freedom for teachers to teach creation. (Why on earth would a handful of YEC be a threat? Well that's because Darwin's case even in the 80's was already becoming a lot weaker.) Yet this case had everything to do with the culture war that started strong in the late 80's. The constitution had nothing to say what can or can't be taught at a public school either what is or isn't science. (My dad remembers schools teaching from the bible in public schools.)The whole point was to continue to elimate any mention of God from the public schools and remove the biblical value that help build this nation. (Even non-christians uses to have respect for the bible)
Obviously the courts can make and have made the constitution mean anything they want. For now child porn is being protected (religiously) by the first amendment by the Supreme Court.

This is probably why some scientists, who weren't fans of ID, wished the courts stayed out of this issue.

 

[random_guy]

Even some of these are worthless. No doubt ACLU can pick a handful (even then doubtful) out of the many lame ones. I sure even an extremely evil person does some good.

Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree then. I see the ACLU as a good organization, helping anyone who's rights have been infringed, such as Rush Limbaugh, and you see them as evil or at least dishonest, I guess.

Still the judge here referred to the 1987 case knowing very well this case had nothing to do with science as Dariwinism had already totally dominate biology even with the freedom for teachers to teach creation. (Why on earth would a handful of YEC be a threat? Well that's because Darwin's case even in the 80's was already becoming a lot weaker.) Yet this case had everything to do with the culture war that started strong in the late 80's. The constitution had nothing to say what can or can't be taught at a public school either what is or isn't science. (My dad remembers schools teaching from the bible in public schools.)The whole point was to continue to elimate any mention of God from the public schools and remove the biblical value that help build this nation. (Even non-christians uses to have respect for the bible)
Obviously the courts can make and have made the constitution mean anything they want. For now child porn is being protected (religiously) by the first amendment by the Supreme Court.

This is probably why some scientists, who weren't fans of ID, wished the courts stayed out of this issue.

First, would you allow teachers to teach that the moon landings were a hoax? If it's so absurd, why not allow it to be taught, unless the astronomers are so threatened by the idea, they must censor it.

Next, I'd like you to back up the statement that child porn is protected by the First Amendment. From what I understand, if someone wrote a story about a child being sexually molested, under some law, it was illegal. Same with drawing a picture of a naked child. As horrible as that is, I view that as the price to pay for free speech, and it should not be illegal. The courts agreed and struck down virtual child porn (computer generated images of naked children).

However, actual images of naked children are illegal and still are illegal, and should remain illegal.

EDIT: And my reply was completely off topic. To be back on topic,

I wish people wouldn't say that this is another step of deGodding America. If ID was not religiously motivated, why do people keep mentioning that we're trying to remove God from schools.

The judge (who's Christian) hit it right on the head when he said ID just wasn't science.

 

[TwinCrier]

It's rather arrogant to claim something isn't science when you prohibit even looking at the evidence. We usually don't put people on trial then say only evidence that supports one conviction is relevant. That is what just happened. ID may or may not be true (it is!), but they're not going to allow the evidence for it to be shown.

 

[Wineberry]

JOHN 1:3-5

(3) All things were made by Him; and without Him not anything made that was made. (4) In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. (5) And the light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not.

I need no other explanation about the origins of life on earth, for in my heart I know God is Creator of all things. When I look at nature and all of creation, I know that it is by no accident that it happened.

God created our world and all of the billions upon billions of galaxies that make up the universe. He truely is awesome!.

 

[gluadys]

It's rather arrogant to claim something isn't science when you prohibit even looking at the evidence. We usually don't put people on trial then say only evidence that supports one conviction is relevant. That is what just happened. ID may or may not be true (it is!), but they're not going to allow the evidence for it to be shown.

This objection only holds water if ID has presented evidence for its claims. In more than a decade of opportunity, it has not done so. One cannot disallow showing evidence when there has been none offered to disallow. One cannot prohibit looking at evidence that does not exist.

 

[gluadys]

JOHN 1:3-5

(3) All things were made by Him; and without Him not anything made that was made. (4) In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. (5) And the light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not.

I need no other explanation about the origins of life on earth, for in my heart I know God is Creator of all things. When I look at nature and all of creation, I know that it is by no accident that it happened.

God created our world and all of the billions upon billions of galaxies that make up the universe. He truely is awesome!.

That is what TEs believe too. The big bang is not an accident. Evolution is not an accident. They are awesome works of an awesome God.

 

[gluadys]

Yet this case had everything to do with the culture war that started strong in the late 80's. The constitution had nothing to say what can or can't be taught at a public school either what is or isn't science. (My dad remembers schools teaching from the bible in public schools.)The whole point was to continue to elimate any mention of God from the public schools and remove the biblical value that help build this nation. (Even non-christians uses to have respect for the bible)

I fully support a place for the expression of religious beliefs in the public school. I even support teaching about religion in the public school. I just think it is nonsensical to ask that the science class be the place to teach religion and the whole drive to insert religious belief into the science curriculum was a colossal error on the part of creationism/ID proponents.

If you want a place for the precepts, scripture and history of Christianity to be taught in public schools, push for the inclusion of comparative religious studies in the curriculum. Even push to make such studies mandatory at the elementary level.

Of course, such a curriculum would have to include equal time for other major religions too, but I see no harm in that--and much gain. One would still end up with all students learning something about Christianity. One would even have the opportunity to give Christian children practice in explaining their beliefs legally to other students in the classroom.

Christmas could be treated as Christmas complete with nativity pageants, but the school would also observe Hannukah, Deepavali and Eid as well as other major festivals of other faiths.

I would much prefer to see honest and open respect for all religions in public schools than to continue in the path of strict secularism as if religion did not exist or is not worth studying.

 

[KerrMetric]

It's rather arrogant to claim something isn't science when you prohibit even looking at the evidence. We usually don't put people on trial then say only evidence that supports one conviction is relevant. That is what just happened. ID may or may not be true (it is!), but they're not going to allow the evidence for it to be shown.

Well ID isn't science. As proposed it cannot be science. You cannot wish this away. There is no evidence in a scientific sense for it. In a metaphysical sense or a philosophical sense then yes - science no.

Just a guess but I'm wagering TwinCrier has no science background.

 

[vossler]

The ACLU is a good organization? Well I suppose if you believe an individual should be allowed to do anything and everything without restriction then I could see someone thinking that the ACLU is a good organization. Heck, lot's of folks felt Hitler was a good leader because he took Germany out of the depression and built them into a superpower. If you tried hard enough you could come up with a lengthy list of accomplishments that one might find good or positive. Would that then make him a good leader, well, I guess that's up to how you view history.

Here are only a small handful of the countless accomplishments of the ACLU.

May 21, 2001

In today's decision, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear Ashcroft v. ACLU - a case that involves a 1998 law - the Child Online Protection Act - a law that makes it a crime to knowingly place objectionable material where a child could find it on the Internet. The 1998 law was passed by Congress to constitutionally address the issue of protecting children from commercial online porn sites after the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that a key provision of the Communications Decency Act - designed to address the online porn issue - was unconstitutional.

DECEMBER 11, 2000

(Topeka, KS) –A federal court in Topeka, Kansas has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union against the Treasurer of Shawnee County, Kansas who was sued for displaying a sign in county offices that bears the nation’s motto “In God We Trust.”

November 9, 2005
WorldNetDaily.com

Ninety members of Congress filed a brief yesterday with a federal appeals court declaring support for the U.S. Defense Department in its sponsorship of the Boy Scouts of America's national jamboree.

The department's backing of the quadrennial event, attended this year by more than 40,000 Scouts, was opposed in a 1999 lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The ACLU contends federal government sponsorship violates the First Amendment, because the Boy Scouts require members to swear an oath to "do my duty to God and my country."

Is the comparison between Hitler and the ACLU fair? No! But it is fair to use it to demonstrate a point. Obviously, I wouldn't expect anyone here to say that Hitler was a good leader, but then again I also wouldn't have expected someone here to say that the ACLU is a good organization. Unfortunately there are a lot things said here that I would have never expected.

This is world we live in and such is how it is.

 

[TwinCrier]

The exact same evidence used to make claims for evolution can be used to disprove it if given a chance.

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

 

[MoodyBlue]

The exact same evidence used to make claims for evolution can be used to disprove it if given a chance.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

When all of the brilliant minds at the Discovery Institute can come up with some real science regarding "intelligent design", then it should be taught in science classes. Patiently waiting....