Quantcast

Let the Intelligence Battle Begin!!!

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
Judge Bars 'Intelligent Design' From Pa. Classes
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- "Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.

Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said. Several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs, he said.

The school board policy, adopted in October 2004, was believed to have been the first of its kind in the nation.

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

The board's attorneys had said members were seeking to improve science education by exposing students to alternatives to Charles Darwin's theory that evolution develops through natural selection. Intelligent-design proponents argue that the theory cannot fully explain the existence of complex life forms.

The plaintiffs challenging the policy argued that intelligent design amounts to a secular repackaging of creationism, which the courts have already ruled cannot be taught in public schools. The judge agreed.

"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom," he wrote in his 139-page opinion.

The Dover policy required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement said Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps." It refers students to an intelligent-design textbook, "Of Pandas and People," for more information.

Jones wrote that he wasn't saying the intelligent design concept shouldn't be studied and discussed, saying its advocates "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors."

But, he wrote, "our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

The controversy divided the community and galvanized voters to oust eight incumbent school board members who supported the policy in the Nov. 8 school board election.

Said the judge: "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."

The board members were replaced by a slate of eight opponents who pledged to remove intelligent design from the science curriculum.

Eric Rothschild, the lead attorney for the families who challenged the policy, called the ruling "a real vindication for the parents who had the courage to stand up and say there was something wrong in their school district."

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which represented the school board, did not immediately return a telephone message seeking comment.

The dispute is the latest chapter in a long-running debate over the teaching of evolution dating back to the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, in which Tennessee biology teacher John T. Scopes was fined $100 for violating a state law that forbade teaching evolution. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed his conviction on a technicality, and the law was repealed in 1967.

Jones heard arguments in the fall during a six-week trial in which expert witnesses for each side debated intelligent design's scientific merits. Other witnesses, including current and former school board members, disagreed over whether creationism was discussed in board meetings months before the curriculum change was adopted.

The case is among at least a handful that have focused new attention on the teaching of evolution in the nation's schools.

Earlier this month, a federal appeals court in Georgia heard arguments over whether evolution disclaimer stickers placed in a school system's biology textbooks were unconstitutional. A federal judge in January ordered Cobb County school officials to immediately remove the stickers, which called evolution a theory, not a fact.

In November, state education officials in Kansas adopted new classroom science standards that call the theory of evolution into question.
 

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
CNN has a good take on this as well, along with this nugget:

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.
Here's the URL:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design/index.html
 

narlus

Eastcoast Softcore
Staff member
Nov 7, 2001
24,658
65
behind the viewfinder
Intelligent-design proponents argue that the theory cannot fully explain the existence of complex life forms.
nothing wrong w/ that, but to then promote a theory w/ absolute no credibilty or empirical evidence, and to pass this off as SCIENCE boggles the mind.
 

Pau11y

Turbo Monkey
I think a happy medium would be something like a class where worlds religions are examined as that... sorta like a worlds theological philosophy. I mean there are some pretty entertaining stories rooted in religion and they should be valued in that respect - as folk lore. Don't get me wrong, I'm an atheist. But I'm not so close minded that I wouldn't be interested in an entertaining story. I watch science fantasy stories on the tube w/ equal interest.

Edit: But this is a good day for the rational population of this planet :D
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Pau11y said:
I think a happy medium would be something like a class where worlds religions are examined as that... sorta like a worlds theological philosophy. I mean there are some pretty entertaining stories rooted in religion and they should be valued in that respect - as folk lore. Don't get me wrong, I'm an atheist. But I'm not so close minded that I wouldn't be interested in an entertaining story. I watch science fantasy stories on the tube w/ equal interest.

Edit: But this is a good day for the rational population of this planet :D
That's a great idea, in theory. No one gets disgrunted when you mention that Odin or Zeus are myth figures.

But, you'd be amazed what Christians or Muslims get like when you do the same about Jesus and Allah. They get all pissy for some reason, and demand that you bow down and obey.
 

Pau11y

Turbo Monkey
Silver said:
That's a great idea, in theory. No one gets disgrunted when you mention that Odin or Zeus are myth figures.

But, you'd be amazed what Christians or Muslims get like when you do the same about Jesus and Allah. They get all pissy for some reason, and demand that you bow down and obey.
True true...
I went thru Greek Mythology in my English class in high school. Really pretty entertaining. I guess it needs to be a class for non-religious ppl, but then you get into some ACLU bullsh!t. Ah this world would be a better place w/o religious zealots. But if they're gone where would the population control come from?
 

wishihadmoney

Monkey
Dec 1, 2005
293
0
Boone, NC
how can u guys seriously think that there was just a bang and we all got here??!...look around you, how can this just happen how can we miraculously come from an amoeba...someone had to create it...call me an idiot, but i dont think we can just evolve...there has been no evidence found that we evolved from anything...and if anyone has some FACTS not just bs with a picture of a monkey that fades into a human...please let me know
 

reflux

Turbo Monkey
Mar 18, 2002
4,617
2
G14 Classified
wishihadmoney said:
how can u guys seriously think that there was just a bang and we all got here??!...look around you, how can this just happen how can we miraculously come from an amoeba...someone had to create it...call me an idiot, but i dont think we can just evolve...there has been no evidence found that we evolved from anything...and if anyone has some FACTS not just bs with a picture of a monkey that fades into a human...please let me know
This is neat thread if you take the time to read it.

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136741&highlight=evolution
 

axlvid23

Monkey
Jun 1, 2003
373
0
Littleton
Pau11y said:
I think a happy medium would be something like a class where worlds religions are examined as that... sorta like a worlds theological philosophy. I mean there are some pretty entertaining stories rooted in religion and they should be valued in that respect - as folk lore. Don't get me wrong, I'm an atheist. But I'm not so close minded that I wouldn't be interested in an entertaining story. I watch science fantasy stories on the tube w/ equal interest.

Edit: But this is a good day for the rational population of this planet :D
I know at my school a course similar to the one you are describing is offered..."World Religions" as it is known here at HHS. Though as a predominantly wealthy and conservative school, this course is defined as an elective to avoid probable parent/teacher/school conflict. The course describes all religions as being equally plausible and valid....and similarly all have philisophically relevant teachings and cultures. Don't ask me how a school responsible for banning numerous books from the littleton public school librarys and classrooms has yet to put a stop to such a liberal class.

but yeah, tis a good day for the thinkers.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
14,914
2,879
Pōneke
wishihadmoney said:
how can u guys seriously think that there was just a bang and we all got here??!...look around you, how can this just happen how can we miraculously come from an amoeba...someone had to create it...call me an idiot, but i dont think we can just evolve...there has been no evidence found that we evolved from anything...and if anyone has some FACTS not just bs with a picture of a monkey that fades into a human...please let me know
OK Sure. You're an idiot.

Slightly more seriously, you need to listen in class.
 

reflux

Turbo Monkey
Mar 18, 2002
4,617
2
G14 Classified
Changleen said:
OK Sure. You're an idiot.

Slightly more seriously, you need to listen in class.
In other words...

Evidence was identified, described, investigated, and experimented upon. This was done for centuries and the result of it was the theory of evolution.

ID on the other hand, was the conclusion and evidence was selected, created, and adjusted to support it.

It is not science when you an experiment is started with a set conclusion. CSI, albeit a cheesy show at times, is a good example of this concept.
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
wishihadmoney said:
how can u guys seriously think that there was just a bang and we all got here??!...look around you, how can this just happen how can we miraculously come from an amoeba...someone had to create it...call me an idiot, but i dont think we can just evolve...there has been no evidence found that we evolved from anything...and if anyone has some FACTS not just bs with a picture of a monkey that fades into a human...please let me know
So what facts do you have to offer there was a "Guiding Hand" in evolution? Your faith in God?

The "Theory" of Evolution is just that, a theory. It is not the Law of Evolution, but a theory which many other sciences are based upon and which has not been disproven.

The theory of Intelligent Design is still being worked upon, and until that point, I refuse to comment about it. However, I am concerned it is being pushed forward not by scientists but by government and religious figures.

It is like if Stephen Jay Gould pushed forward theories about Jesus with mathetical equations. I would not trust it either.
 

GumbaFish

Turbo Monkey
Oct 5, 2004
1,747
0
Rochester N.Y.
Hooray fer fancy book lernin'. Seriously ID has no place in a science class, just as I am sure overzealous religious people would protest to making kids learn about evolution in sunday school or church. There is afterall a separation of church and state.
 

kinghami3

Future Turbo Monkey
Jun 1, 2004
2,239
0
Ballard 4 life.
Old Man G Funk said:
Happy medium? What would you suggest?
You again. :think: How about a completely non religious stance, like it's supposed to be? One that neither denies nor claims God's involvement? Sounds wishy-washy, but that's how I think it's supposed to be when it comes to such matters.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
26
SF, CA
kinghami3 said:
You again. :think: How about a completely non religious stance, like it's supposed to be? One that neither denies nor claims God's involvement? Sounds wishy-washy, but that's how I think it's supposed to be when it comes to such matters.
Uh, I hate to point out the obvious, but SCIENCE NEITHER DENIES NOR CLAIMS GOD'S INVOLVEMENT. I don't know where these zealots get the idea that science is exclusive with God. Science points to what we can confirm, but makes no claims beyond that. Who defined the laws of physics that govern our universe? Science doesn't know and doesn't claim to know. As far as science is concerned, these laws just are. Does that leave enough room for God? Apparently not, because these backasswards freaks want to reverse the progress science has made thus far just because THEY haven't taken the time to understand how the scientific theories were developed.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
ohio said:
Uh, I hate to point out the obvious, but SCIENCE NEITHER DENIES NOR CLAIMS GOD'S INVOLVEMENT.
True. The problem, from the religious point of view, is that is seems to be the case that an educated person will look at the facts and sometimes say, "You know, why postulate the existence of God when this can all happen without him just as easily?"

And we all that everytime that happens, the baby Jesus starts bleeding from his wrists again...
 

kinghami3

Future Turbo Monkey
Jun 1, 2004
2,239
0
Ballard 4 life.
ohio said:
Uh, I hate to point out the obvious, but SCIENCE NEITHER DENIES NOR CLAIMS GOD'S INVOLVEMENT. I don't know where these zealots get the idea that science is exclusive with God. Science points to what we can confirm, but makes no claims beyond that. Who defined the laws of physics that govern our universe? Science doesn't know and doesn't claim to know. As far as science is concerned, these laws just are. Does that leave enough room for God? Apparently not, because these backasswards freaks want to reverse the progress science has made thus far just because THEY haven't taken the time to understand how the scientific theories were developed.
I fully agree with you. My comment was off of this:
Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.
Although I think God was involved in the evolutionary process, I also believe that it is taught that it is either God and Creation or no God and evolution (or natural selection, whatever you want to call it).
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
26
SF, CA
Silver said:
True. The problem, from the religious point of view, is that is seems to be the case that an educated person will look at the facts and sometimes say, "You know, why postulate the existence of God when this can all happen without him just as easily?"
Actually you didn't quite follow what I was saying... Science DOES claim that life was initiated and evolved without the help of God. Or if God was involved, it was by doing absolutley nothing except letting the laws of physics and statistics take their course given the available elements. But where there is PLENTY of room for God, if one desires, is in the definition of those laws of physics, or the elemental (really sub-atomic, I should say) make-up of the universe. Science is our tool to discover those laws that govern our universe, but it never claims to know how or why the laws came to be. That is where people would or should get philosophical if they feel that there is a higher power.

Unfortunately, I think the reason that is not enough is because people are self-centered and need to feel special, that they're the center of the universe or a "chosen being," or they're scared and need to feel there's some great maternal or paternal being watching over them and keeping them safe. Because if it were just about believing in God, none of this would ever be a debate. It's only when science starts to point to our insignificance that people tweak out.

Even that is funny to me, because I look at us and I see an absolute wonder of physics and math... something beautiful and amazing. I don't need a God to feel taken aback by the uniqueness and infinitessimally small chance that brought us to where we are. Isn't that significant enough?
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Silver said:
an educated person will look at the facts and sometimes say, "You know, why postulate the existence of God when this can all happen without him just as easily?"
.
Educated?

What's that got to do with anything even remotely involved with proponents of intelligent design?

I should have tried that sh!t on calculus tests...............but I BELIEVE this is how you integrate this function and I REALLY FEEL I'm right.
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
ohio said:
Even that is funny to me, because I look at us and I see an absolute wonder of physics and math... something beautiful and amazing. I don't need a God to feel taken aback by the uniqueness and infinitessimally small chance that brought us to where we are. Isn't that significant enough?
Well duh.

You actually passed those classes.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
26
SF, CA
kinghami3 said:
I fully agree with you. My comment was off of this:
Although I think God was involved in the evolutionary process, I also believe that it is taught that it is either God and Creation or no God and evolution (or natural selection, whatever you want to call it).
Yes, it IS taught that way because evolution is evolution regardless of God. It would make ZERO difference to the explanation of the evolutionary process to include God. Just as all science is the same science irrespective of God. There is space for God in a philosophy of physics course, but it would be absolutely wrong to only allow a Judeo-Christian God into that space. An infinite number of types of Gods and explanations could explain the reasoning behind the laws of our universe.

I'll rephrase my statement in my previous post, to say that what may be most threatening about science is that it doesn't leave much space for a God that dictates morality (except to the extent we are subject to laqws of nature and seek to optimize our lot as a species... which I hate to do because people confuse that with a claim that "science is moral"), nor does it leave much room for an afterlife unless that afterlife is awarded to all living things from viruses on up.
 

kinghami3

Future Turbo Monkey
Jun 1, 2004
2,239
0
Ballard 4 life.
ohio said:
Actually you didn't quite follow what I was saying... Science DOES claim that life was initiated and evolved without the help of God. Or if God was involved, it was by doing absolutley nothing except letting the laws of physics and statistics take their course given the available elements. But where there is PLENTY of room for God, if one desires, is in the definition of those laws of physics, or the elemental (really sub-atomic, I should say) make-up of the universe. Science is our tool to discover those laws that govern our universe, but it never claims to know how or why the laws came to be. That is where people would or should get philosophical if they feel that there is a higher power.

Unfortunately, I think the reason that is not enough is because people are self-centered and need to feel special, that they're the center of the universe or a "chosen being," or they're scared and need to feel there's some great maternal or paternal being watching over them and keeping them safe. Because if it were just about believing in God, none of this would ever be a debate. It's only when science starts to point to our insignificance that people tweak out.

Even that is funny to me, because I look at us and I see an absolute wonder of physics and math... something beautiful and amazing. I don't need a God to feel taken aback by the uniqueness and infinitessimally small chance that brought us to where we are. Isn't that significant enough?
A little too Deistic for my taste. I believe that God created science and math, and even set nature on its course, but at the same time is still thoroughly involved with them. I likewise believe that God dictates morality, but is involved in all the theoretical, physical, and social sciences as the creator of them, working them into a beautiful harmony. In the Magician's Nephew, C.S. Lewis shows God as someone who enjoys creation and harmony.

Back to topic, educators in the US public system are not at liberty to deny or claim God's existence or involvement in creation. Science does not do this, but that does not mean that it is often taught this way.
 

Toshi

butthole powerwashing evangelist
Oct 23, 2001
40,241
9,123
kinghami3 said:
A little too Deistic for my taste. I believe that God created science and math, and even set nature on its course, but at the same time is still thoroughly involved with them.
please set forth the evidence that you think supports your belief that your god is still "thoroughly involved" in "science and math".
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
14,914
2,879
Pōneke
God graded my GCSE maths paper. I think he invigilated in the French exam too... It was Jeebus who did sicence though, although only Physics and Chemistry.
 

kinghami3

Future Turbo Monkey
Jun 1, 2004
2,239
0
Ballard 4 life.
Toshi said:
please set forth the evidence that you think supports your belief that your god is still "thoroughly involved" in "science and math".
As stated, it is my belief, which rests in the faith that I have as a Christian. If there was hard evidence, there would not be faith, and to me that would make my religion meaningless.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
14,914
2,879
Pōneke
Being as math especially is a completely human construct (we didn't even figure out the concept of zero until around Roman times, and eastern (Mostly Islamic) scholars came up with it in the first place) how does your god have anything to do with maths?
 

kinghami3

Future Turbo Monkey
Jun 1, 2004
2,239
0
Ballard 4 life.
Changleen said:
Being as math especially is a completely human construct (we didn't even figure out the concept of zero until around Roman times, and eastern (Mostly Islamic) scholars came up with it in the first place) how does your god have anything to do with maths?
You have a point, math is the language that we use to describe the sciences.




P.S. Forgive me for expressing my own views of my God, I wasn't trying to press them on anyone, and am not in the mood for an argument. Frankly, all this is pissing me off. Can I just say that I don't like the conservative Christian right and their stupid ideas about intelligent design and be done with it?
 

Reactor

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2005
3,976
1
Chandler, AZ, USA
Science, systematic study of anything that can be examined, tested, and verified. The word science is derived from the Latin word scire, meaning “to know.”
In other words Science is what we know from observation and empirical evidence of the world. A scientific theory is a working working model based on limited information. Intelligent design doesn't have a shred of evidence to support it. In fact it's there is quite a bit of evidence that directly contradicts it. Nowhere are the words "Faith", "Religion" or "Belief" mentioned in science. You can believe for example that the world was made by a giant space beaver(yes it's from an actual religion). But it isn't a scientific theory, because it isn't based in science, it's based on faith, belief and religion. It's not a scientific theory, because it just isn't science.

The entry level of every science class I've ever taken, and I've had quite a few over the last 42 years, starts with a disclaimer that a scientific theory is a set of rules that explain and are supported by observations and empirical evidence. They are not face and are only an attempt to explain. Theories are modified when new evidence supports changing them. Fairly frequently theories are disproved. Evolution has stood with very little modification, and under intense scrutiny, for well over a hundred years. The evidence supporting it is overwhelming.

Believe what you want to believe, but keep it in theology class where it belongs.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
14,914
2,879
Pōneke
kinghami3 said:
P.S. Forgive me for expressing my own views of my God, I wasn't trying to press them on anyone, and am not in the mood for an argument. Frankly, all this is pissing me off. Can I just say that I don't like the conservative Christian right and their stupid ideas about intelligent design and be done with it?
Not at all - it's interesting, OK, and Sure. :)
 

GumbaFish

Turbo Monkey
Oct 5, 2004
1,747
0
Rochester N.Y.
When did people stray off from the Bible onto all of these meanginless side arguements. I don't understand why there are so many debates and wars over things like creation or who God is when there is so little talk of the bigger picture. What is wrong with reading the Bible and simply taking away that you should treat people with respect,be loving, try not to sin etc. I don't understand how somebody can read the Bible and say 'hey you know what those muslim bastards don't believe in our God so lets go kill them'. Maybe did you ever think the Bible isn't literal but you can still believe in God and live by the teachings in the book. What makes a christian god more plausible then polytheistic relgions, or ones that are in tune with nature. Nothing thats what. I am sick and tired of religious people pushing their beliefs on others, let them read the Bible and take from it what they will, it will mean a lot more then listening to you tell them what you think they should take as important.

I am a man of science, that is what I will do for the rest of my life. I can't count how often I marvel at the world around us, or our very structure of human anatomy. I think science is very spiritual, and that is not how the general public would view it. Do I believe in God, well I pray every night. Do I think the Bible is literal, absolutely not. Does it ultimately matter if there is a God to me, not so long as I have done my best to live my life in a way that I feel is morally acceptable. End of random sentences / digression.

Keep religion out of public schools end of story.