[Pau11y]

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

Hey wishman. I want you to REALLY pass this thought thru your head. I'm not rippin' on you, but just REALLY think about this one, k?

Now, what's more miraculous 1) the rarest of rare occurrence in the cosmic nature - life, lots of life, on a very special rock (with the ingredient of primary importance -> water) all by itself, or 2) attributing such a miracle to a hand of some figment of human construct ("God created humans in his likeness...") which indirectly implicates human involvement in the said miracle. Dude, to attribute this spectacularly rare cosmic event (yes it is cosmic...I'll get into that in a min) to anything less than the event itself is cheapening it ridiculously. Ok, I know this is a very hippie-power flower-child kind of view, but seriously REALLY think this one thru.
Now on the cosmic event thing: I just finished a class where we considered the current lifespan of the universe and the relative amount of life possible within that span. The current life span of the universe is estimated to be at 13.7 billion years, ±200 million years. EVERY scientist is in agreement with this number. Ok, with that in mind, and using the entire lifespan of earth (4.56 billion years old) as one year (called geoyear), the universe is almost exactly 3 goeyears old. Using this scale, the first star (like our Sun) appeared roughly on mid Jan of the first geoyear. At the rate in which hydrogen is consumed in the fusion reaction in a star, the first nova/supernovas happened around June of the 2nd geoyear. This is important because when a star goes nova/supernova, it kills the planets that are orbiting it. So, this means the earliest possible life HAS to start AFTER the first series of nova/supernovas. ALSO, in the special case of Earth, there is an internal fission nuclear reaction producing geothermal heat. This, along w/ some mild greenhouse gas effect keeps the water in the liquid state which is what life needs to start. Now, this is where the nova/supernovas come in. As the pressures from the hydrogen fusion reaction only generates enough heat and pressure to produce the elements up to 26 protons, pressures from a nova/supernova produces the heavier elements which is what's reacting in Earth's core to produce heat. So, factoring in this, it re-enforces the idea that life could not have started prior to the first nova/supernovas. So remember the date: middle of the 2nd geoyear.
Moving on. Life started here on earth, not as an amoeba but bacteria. Even tho amoebas are only one cell, the fact that it's a cell w/ membrane indicates it's further along on the EVOLUTION development road than simple protein strands and amino acid. The time it (life in the form of bacteria) started was around Jan 11th or 10 of Earth's life span (fossils of this has been dated to 4.1 billion years old). From here to the point where your so-called apes from which we sprung, is well over 11 months of earth's life. Fishes didn't exist until mid December of this last geoyear. The great Permian extinction (the one where all the dinosaurs died due to the meteorite hit in the Yucatan) wasn't until Dec 26th. Humans, in a form you'd recognize didn't exist until 1/2 hour before midnight of the last day. The first human arrival on the North American continent (I'm talking about those even before Native Americans, not Columbus) was 11 mins before midnight, and Columbus appeared at around 14 seconds before midnight.
My point w/ this break down is just to show you just how excruciatingly LONG evolution is, how big of a miracle it actually is, and how it REALLY cheapens something this miraculous by attributing it to a human construct of a "god".

Now, on a separate note, do you think there are many other "intelligent" life forms in the universe after considering the above breakdown? Of the available time for evolution since middle of the 2nd geoyear, it took 2/3 of it for life on this planet to crawl out of the "soup". Even by sheer numbers of possibilities, life as we know it is exceedingly rare in the universe supported by the fact that we haven’t found any even within our own solar system beside that on this planet.

If you want some references, dig up Carl Sagan's (Updated) Cosmos series from PBS. It'll explain things in much better ways and more details than I just did.

Edit: BTW, you can torrent that series. It's all over the 'net.

 

[Pau11y]

...leave much room for an afterlife unless that afterlife is awarded to all living things from viruses on up.

Viruses are not considered "alive". The cannot replicate by themselves w/o first being introduced to a host.

 

[kinghami3]

Not at all - it's interesting, OK, and Sure.

Thanks , I think I just had a mental breakdown, I'm ok now. The problem with arguing religion is that so much of it is taken on faith that to sound fair and reasonable becomes pretty difficult. That point made:

From the Christian perspective we see God as the creator of all good things, not only physical but philosophical and spiritual as well. In that way, the sciences, human morality, and our physical surroundings all have a root connection. According to many theologians, the meaning of life and Creation is love (others would argue faith), which means that love is the root connection of all forms of creation. The sciences relate to our physical surroundings and our bodies, while that same strain of logic relates to philosophy, which relate to our morality, all forming a harmonious clockwork meant to support us as human beings.

Deists believe that God set this clockwork in motion and then became uninvolved with Creation. The Christian perspective is that God is active in our daily lives, if not in the rest of creation as well. he gives us moral motivation, insight, and comfort, and listens to our prayers, even performing spiritual miracles. When it comes to God's involvement in creation, I think C.S. Lewis described it best in The Magician's Nephew, in which Aslan is in the process of creating a new world, and in the process is walking through the world and singing a song from which things are created. This is one of the ways that I like to look at Creation. God didn't just set the clockwork in motion, but was involved because he loves his Creation and enjoys creating. I believe that is the point that the authors of Genesis were trying to make, not that God created the Universe in six days.

When it comes to incorporating these beliefs about creation into our school system, we have to be careful. Outside of the constitution, it is foolish to say that either science in null or religion is null, especially because no one can even prove God exists in the first place. If we could prove that God existed, the faith in God that Christians have, which is again rooted in love, would cease being faith and turn into a harsh reality. I don't study political science or law, so I don't really know what the constitution says about the topic, but to take away from the science that we all know exists (and Christians believe God created for a reason) does an injustice to our education system and would be unfair to those of other faiths.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

You again. 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.

Yeah, me again.

The problem is that there is NO version of ID that doesn't involve god. There is no secular version of ID. Care to try and come up with a secular version of it? Good luck. You have to separate biological ID from cosmological ID and throw the latter out. Then, you have to open up the exclusive possibility that life here was seeded by aliens. See how far you get with that (the Raelians and the Scientologists would probably back you.)

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).

And your belief on this would be wrong. Jonathan Wells of the DI has made much hay over this issue only to be shown wrong time and again. He is constantly saying that evolution is atheistic and taught that way, but examinations of the texts that he cites routinely show him to be lying about what they say and how the material is presented.

What he is really railing against is the fact that evolution is taught without mention of god. This is done for a reason. All science is taught without mention of god because god is inherently outside the scope of science. Science deals with the empirical, using empirical methods to figure out how the natural world works. God is supernatural and thus defined to be outside of science. Science neither confirms nor denies god.

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.

That god created science, math, the universe, etc. is completely up to you to believe or disbelieve and evolution has no say in it. Whether god interacts with the physical world is also up to you (I happen to disagree with Ohio on this one.) God could be causing random mutations to happen. God could be setting the natural conditions that allow natural selection to operate as it does. God could be doing lots of things, like personally touching people's hearts for example. Personally, I feel that it is a superfluous extra layer that need not be there and Occam's Razor generally does away with it, but there's no requirement for one to abandon god in order to accept evolution.

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?

Expressing your views is fine. I disagree with them, which is why I debate, but this venue is set up for that. The problem comes in when people go beyond simply expressing their views and try to push them on others, which is exactly what we have with ID. ID is simply an attempt to push one religious sect's views on the general population.

From the Christian perspective we see God as the creator of all good things

You mean the creator of all things period, correct?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

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

If this isn't a drive-by posting and you are willing to look at some data, I would suggest you head over to

www.talkorigins.org

I'd also suggest the popular book What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr. Find it here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465044263/qid=1135166930/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-5466948-3568605?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

Stephen Jay Gould's The Panda's Thumb is also a good read. Find it here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393308197/qid=1135167003/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-5466948-3568605?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

 

[Old Man G Funk]

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'.

There's actually lots of examples of killing, holy war, even genocide in the Bible. One could just as easily find the passages on war and killing as the passages on love and peace and support a holy war against muslims, non-believers, etc.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

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.

Yeah, Paul Mirecki at Kansas University got beat up over it. He dared to set up a class that would teach ID as mythology.

 

[fluff]

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?

I am the only one who has lost the will to trawl through each ad every ID v Science thread? Well, anyway regardless of that here is the only worthwhile part of my post:

Our uniqueness (as homo sapiens) is without question, however the 'infinitessimally small chance' is not. Such small probabilities would lend weight to an ID 'theory', and the Darwinist theory would be much weakened if the probability of our existence were to be so small. The probability of our existence is relatively high in comparison.

The complexity is still a thing of wonder, and creates such disapointment when you contrast much of human behaviour against it.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I am the only one who has lost the will to trawl through each ad every ID v Science thread? Well, anyway regardless of that here is the only worthwhile part of my post:

Our uniqueness (as homo sapiens) is without question, however the 'infinitessimally small chance' is not. Such small probabilities would lend weight to an ID 'theory', and the Darwinist theory would be much weakened if the probability of our existence were to be so small. The probability of our existence is relatively high in comparison.

The complexity is still a thing of wonder, and creates such disapointment when you contrast much of human behaviour against it.

Hmmm....
Actually, we can't really say at this point whether the probability is small or not. We simply don't know. The only thing we know is that we do exist, so somehow it happened. We don't know all the possible permutations, etc. so we can't tell how big the probability space/function is. Without knowing anything about the probability distribution, we can't know how likely events are/were.

You are completely correct though that IDers try to use the improbability argument against evolution (and usually abiogenesis although they never can seem to get the difference between the two.) They use the arguments incorrectly though, since they invariably make assumptions about the probability distribution that they shouldn't make.

 

[fluff]

Hmmm....
Actually, we can't really say at this point whether the probability is small or not. We simply don't know. The only thing we know is that we do exist, so somehow it happened. We don't know all the possible permutations, etc. so we can't tell how big the probability space/function is. Without knowing anything about the probability distribution, we can't know how likely events are/were.

You are completely correct though that IDers try to use the improbability argument against evolution (and usually abiogenesis although they never can seem to get the difference between the two.) They use the arguments incorrectly though, since they invariably make assumptions about the probability distribution that they shouldn't make.

You are right, we do not know the probability as we do not know all of the parameters but we can make some interesting and revealing postulations regarding the number of planets that exist that 'could' support life. If we then look at the possibility of life arising within x billions of years across x number of planets then the probability looks a lot mkore friendly. Even if Earth is the only planet on which life has arisen the probability does not necessarily decline as all the other eligible lumps of rock appear to be the unlucky ones.

What is likely is that the probability is not infinitesimally small. But somewhere in the region of reasonable.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

You are right, we do not know the probability as we do not know all of the parameters but we can make some interesting and revealing postulations regarding the number of planets that exist that 'could' support life. If we then look at the possibility of life arising within x billions of years across x number of planets then the probability looks a lot mkore friendly. Even if Earth is the only planet on which life has arisen the probability does not necessarily decline as all the other eligible lumps of rock appear to be the unlucky ones.

What is likely is that the probability is not infinitesimally small. But somewhere in the region of reasonable.

That is a more accurate statement.

One thing that IDers tend to misrepresent is that life doesn't necessarily mean life that is identical to ours (carbon-based, etc.) It's enitirely possible that we may find life out there that doesn't resemble us at all.

That said, we don't really know that much about the make-up of many extra-solar systems. It's very hard to find planets, and the ones that we can find are usually gas giant types (which are so big that they obstruct our ability to find smaller planets that we believe could harbor life.) There's still a lot that we don't know.

Of course, whether Earth is the only planet in the universe that has life or not doesn't lend one iota of credibility to ID in the least. IDers claim that it does, but that's not the case.

 

[Silver]

Our uniqueness (as homo sapiens) is without question, however the 'infinitessimally small chance' is not. Such small probabilities would lend weight to an ID 'theory', and the Darwinist theory would be much weakened if the probability of our existence were to be so small. The probability of our existence is relatively high in comparison.

Not our existence, but some life, perhaps. We are not the end product of the evolutionary cycle.

The one other thing to remember about small probabilities...they only had to happen once.

 

[fluff]

Not our existence, but some life, perhaps. We are not the end product of the evolutionary cycle.

The one other thing to remember about small probabilities...they only had to happen once.

OK, my language was a little imprecise, but you get the point...

 

[ohio]

Our uniqueness (as homo sapiens) is without question, however the 'infinitessimally small chance' is not.

The operative phrase was "brought us to where we are." Somewhat high probability of life occuring. Very low probability of evolving exactly as it did on Earth. Very low probability that the exact sperm and egg that combined to make each of us, did combine. Etc, etc.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

The operative phrase was "brought us to where we are." Somewhat high probability of life occuring. Very low probability of evolving exactly as it did on Earth. Very low probability that the exact sperm and egg that combined to make each of us, did combine. Etc, etc.

If one were looking at the universe and calculating the probability that Old Man G Funk would be born and writing on this forum, the probability would be so infinitessimally small as to be considered zero. It's like a particle sliding up and down a ruler. What is the probability that it falls exactly on the 1 inch mark? It is zero.

The problem with that, though, is that it did happen, we aren't looking at it from the beginning but from the endpoint, and we have no clue what the possibilities were that we had to choose from.

 

[ohio]

If one were looking at the universe and calculating the probability that Old Man G Funk would be born and writing on this forum, the probability would be so infinitessimally small as to be considered zero. It's like a particle sliding up and down a ruler. What is the probability that it falls exactly on the 1 inch mark? It is zero.

The problem with that, though, is that it did happen, we aren't looking at it from the beginning but from the endpoint, and we have no clue what the possibilities were that we had to choose from.

We are in agreement.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

We are in agreement.

Rock on then. I misunderstood. My bad bro.

 

[Pau11y]

I want to throw a wrench into this discussion of probabilities. Experiments have shown the probability, given a set of parameters is VERY likely that the fundamental building blocks of life will form. These parameters hub around liquid water and carbon. These two elements have very unique properties to them that suppport the developemnt of life, or the building block of life.
Water, in its densest form is at 4 C. When frozen, it's actually less dense therefore stay on top of the liquid form, insolating it from further freezing...therefore it self supports the ideal condition of life -> liquid state. Carbon allows for chaining. Silicon doesn't do this to the extent of carbon so if there are silicon life foms out there, they'll tend to be simpler than those of carbon based.
Now the experiments. Given an environment of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and some other elements in gaseous states that I can't recall, when thesea gases are energized by electricity (reads lightening) formation of the 9 essential amino acids ALWAYS happens (reference: Carl Sagan's Cosmos for the experiment in question - its been done over and over and over again and the same results happen EVERY time).
Oh, these elemental gases are in abundance in nebular clouds during the fromation of stars and planets... But considering to get to where we are, it took 1/6 the span of the entire length of the life of the universe, "intelligent" life elsewhere is looking more and more bleek (spelling?).

 

[ohio]

I want to throw a wrench into this discussion of probabilities. Experiments have shown the probability, given a set of parameters is VERY likely that the fundamental building blocks of life will form. These parameters hub around liquid water and carbon. These two elements have very unique properties to them that suppport the developemnt of life, or the building block of life.
Water, in its densest form is at 4 C. When frozen, it's actually less dense therefore stay on top of the liquid form, insolating it from further freezing...therefore it self supports the ideal condition of life -> liquid state. Carbon allows for chaining. Silicon doesn't do this to the extent of carbon so if there are silicon life foms out there, they'll tend to be simpler than those of carbon based.
Now the experiments. Given an environment of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and some other elements in gaseous states that I can't recall, when thesea gases are energized by electricity (reads lightening) formation of the 9 essential amino acids ALWAYS happens

Exactly.

If you must look for intelligent design, take a look at the physics of sub-atomic particles that make water an incredibly unique chemical, but don't try to tell me that same anthropomorphic being is manipulating my genes.

edit: (psssst... water isn't an element. it's a chemical)

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I want to throw a wrench into this discussion of probabilities. Experiments have shown the probability, given a set of parameters is VERY likely that the fundamental building blocks of life will form. These parameters hub around liquid water and carbon. These two elements have very unique properties to them that suppport the developemnt of life, or the building block of life.
Water, in its densest form is at 4 C. When frozen, it's actually less dense therefore stay on top of the liquid form, insolating it from further freezing...therefore it self supports the ideal condition of life -> liquid state. Carbon allows for chaining. Silicon doesn't do this to the extent of carbon so if there are silicon life foms out there, they'll tend to be simpler than those of carbon based.
Now the experiments. Given an environment of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and some other elements in gaseous states that I can't recall, when thesea gases are energized by electricity (reads lightening) formation of the 9 essential amino acids ALWAYS happens (reference: Carl Sagan's Cosmos for the experiment in question - its been done over and over and over again and the same results happen EVERY time).
Oh, these elemental gases are in abundance in nebular clouds during the fromation of stars and planets... But considering to get to where we are, it took 1/6 the span of the entire length of the life of the universe, "intelligent" life elsewhere is looking more and more bleek (spelling?).

The key is that you are given a set of parameters. If not given that set, then all bets are off.

Of course, the IDers are doubly wrong in this case, because they take the given set of parameters that we have (the same ones you have used) and try to argue that life could NOT have formed on its own, when it turns out that multiple experiments have shown that it can and does.

 

[Pau11y]

Exactly.

If you must look for intelligent design, take a look at the physics of sub-atomic particles that make water an incredibly unique chemical, but don't try to tell me that same anthropomorphic being is manipulating my genes.

edit: (psssst... water isn't an element. it's a chemical)

Sorry, meant to use "substances". I was in a rush when I typed it. But in the case of IDers, it may not be that far off (4 elements: earth, wind, fire, water....j/k).

 

[Pau11y]

The key is that you are given a set of parameters. If not given that set, then all bets are off.

Of course, the IDers are doubly wrong in this case, because they take the given set of parameters that we have (the same ones you have used) and try to argue that life could NOT have formed on its own, when it turns out that multiple experiments have shown that it can and does.

With respect to said conditions, using EM spectrum analysis, it's been determined that those conditions are more common than not. The most common elements floating the the void of space is Hydrogen and Helium gas. In and around nova/supernovees (spelling?) the other gases for the given conditions are in abundance.

 

[Pau11y]

BTW, I was watching a TV special on "heaven" last night hosted by Babwah Waltas (sic). In it they were talking to some researchers in genetics. Apparently, there are those of us who are more predisposed to believing in a "god" than some of us due to a genetic mutation. Called the "God" gene, it opens the door for those who believe. So, the idea of God may be hard coded into the genetics of humans. Now, here's the chicken/egg question: could this be the norm making those who don't believe deficient, or could this be a flaw that's allowing some to delusional (spelling?)? Whatever the case, it is w/ science this fact was found...

Edit: sorry, I shouldn't use the word "fact" as research is still ongoing, maybe "development"...?

 

[Changleen]

A gene which makes someone predisposed to irrational belief is clearly a deficiancy. It's pretty much the same as having a gene which made your brain act as if it was drunk the whole time.

 

[Pau11y]

Friggin' priceless!

 

[Toshi]

fwiw, the book "the god gene" and all that hubbub are based on really flimsy evidence. an amusing concept but probably not one that is true.

http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2004/articles_2004_hamer.html
http://www.bookslut.com/features/2005_06_005638.php

Science writer and blogger Carl Zimmer is unsatisfied with Hamer’s page 8 retreat. He suggests a title that more accurately reflects the book’s contents: A Gene That Accounts for Less Than One Percent of the Variance Found in Scores on Psychological Questionnaires Designed to Measure a Factor Called Self-Transcendence, Which Can Signify Everything from Belonging to the Green Party to Believing in ESP, According to One Unpublished, Unreplicated Study.

 

[Changleen]

Ah, I see. Thanks Toshi. I can stand down preparations for my genetic screening and sterilization programme for the bible belt then?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

With respect to said conditions, using EM spectrum analysis, it's been determined that those conditions are more common than not. The most common elements floating the the void of space is Hydrogen and Helium gas. In and around nova/supernovees (spelling?) the other gases for the given conditions are in abundance.

Yes, Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Helium comes in at second. Those aren't the conditions I was referring to though. IDers like to try and co-opt anthropic arguments (especially cosmological ID) into their discussions where they use arguments about the cosmological constant, etc. It runs much deeper than which elements are present. It's still all bunk though (we definitely agree on that.) I'm just taking it a step farther (because I battle with IDers on almost a daily basis and I already know which arguments they tend to like to bring up.)

 

[Old Man G Funk]

It continues. The proponents of the Dover policy may be tried for perjury!

http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1135248153247780.xml&coll=1

 

[Old Man G Funk]

ID is now officially gone from the Dover policy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/03/AR2006010301360.html

Board Rescinds 'Intelligent Design' Policy

By MARTHA RAFFAELE
The Associated Press
Tuesday, January 3, 2006; 10:57 PM

DOVER, Pa. -- Dover's much-maligned school policy of presenting "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution was officially relegated to the history books Tuesday night.

On a voice vote, and with no discussion beforehand, the newly elected Dover Area School Board unanimously rescinded the policy. Two weeks earlier, a judge ruled the policy unconstitutional.

"This is it," new school board president Bernadette Reinking said Tuesday, indicating the vote was final and the case was closed.

A different group of school board members had been in control when the policy was approved in October 2004. The policy required that a statement be read to Dover public school students about "intelligent design" before ninth-grade biology class lessons on evolution.

The statement said Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps." It also referred students to an "intelligent-design" book, "Of Pandas and People."

Eight families sued, and on Dec. 20, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III sided with their argument that the concept of "intelligent design" _ which attributes the existence of complex organisms to an unidentified intelligent cause _ is religious, not scientific. The judge said that violated the establishment clause in the First Amendment.

Dover biology teacher Jennifer Miller was relieved Tuesday night to know the policy was officially off the books.

"I will feel comfortable again teaching what I'd always felt comfortable teaching," she after the meeting, attended by a crowd of about 100 people.

School board members declined to comment after the vote.

Most of the previous board members who had defended the policy were ousted in the November election, replaced by candidates who pledged to eliminate the policy.

Policy defenders had said they were trying to improve science education by exposing students to alternatives with the policy. But the judge said the board's real purpose was "to promote religion in the public school classroom," and said intelligent design could not be taught as an alternative to evolution in biology classes.

"I tried ... to warn the board that we were facing a disaster and obviously I was not persuasive enough," said Jeff Brown, a former board member who resigned in protest after the policy passed. He said the costly court battle could have been avoided.

The Dover policy and high-profile lawsuit added fuel to a national debate over "intelligent design."

In Kansas, where state officials have been arguing over the teaching of evolution since 1999, education officials recently approved science standards that treat evolution as a flawed theory.

In Georgia, the state schools superintendent drew protests in 2004 for proposing a science curriculum that replaced the word "evolution" with "changes over time." Last year, a federal judge ordered Cobb County schools to remove from biology textbooks stickers that called evolution a theory, not a fact.