Judge bans teaching Intelligent Design

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

anitram

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Mar 13, 2001
Messages
18,918
Location
NY
Read the full article in Time Magazine:

Intelligent design is a religious idea and a Pennsylvania school board may not introduce it into the classroom, a federal judge ruled today. Judge John E. Jones III ruled that the Dover Area School Board improperly introduced religion into the classroom when it required science teachers to read a brief statement during the 9th grade biology class telling students that evolution was “Just a theory” and inviting them to consider alternatives. The only alternative specifically mentioned was “intelligent design,” the notion that life is so complex that it could not possibly have been the work of natural selection alone and must have been the work of an unspecified creative intelligence. “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,” Jones wrote.
 
Knowing that we've already debated evolution v. ID, set aside your desired outcome in the case and analyze the judge's thought process. At what point is the school establishing religion?

1. Identifying Evolution as "just a theory"?

2. Inviting students to consider alternatives?

3. Mentioning Intelligent Design?

I note that the description of intelligent design does not even mention the word God.

If Intelligent Design = religion, what religion is it??
 
“Everybody understood that intelligent design was a religious proposition, and we are absolutely thrilled that Judge Jones has seen through the smoke and mirrors used by intelligent design proponents,”

Well said. :up:
 
nbcrusader said:


2. Inviting students to consider alternatives?


He did expand on this, saying that they invited students to consider alternatives, but that the only alternative to be presented was Intelligent Design. If you happen to believe evolution is either a faulty theory or "just a theory" and you want your students to be presented with alternative points of view, then it certainly seems disingenous to have only a single alternative. For example, why not present the Hindu beliefs re: the creation and destruction cycles of the universe as an alternate theory? Certainly about a billion people worldwide believe in it, so it is not something on the fringes.
 
regarding number 2, if there is an alternative scientific theory that has a place in a science classroom I don't think anyone would object to that.

I don't think ID should be absolutely prohibited from any mention or discussion (simply for discussion purposes, ie explaining the difference between a theory and a scientific theory :wink: ), but it shouldn't be discussed as a valid alternative.
 
VertigoGal said:
I don't think ID should be absolutely prohibited from any mention or discussion (simply for discussion purposes, ie explaining the difference between a theory and a scientific theory :wink: ), but it shouldn't be discussed as a valid alternative.



exactly.

what's been so dangerous about this debate is that it has placed superstition on the same level as decades upon decades of careful, methodical scientific work gained through rigorous application of the scientific method.

discussion of the origins of life and the universe from all different perspectives is 100% appropriate for a religion class.
 
nbcrusader said:
Knowing that we've already debated evolution v. ID, set aside your desired outcome in the case and analyze the judge's thought process. At what point is the school establishing religion?

1. Identifying Evolution as "just a theory"?

2. Inviting students to consider alternatives?

3. Mentioning Intelligent Design?

I note that the description of intelligent design does not even mention the word God.

If Intelligent Design = religion, what religion is it??

ID is fundamentalist Christian creationism in disguise. No other religion trumpets it. Even Catholic schools teach "Darwinism" in science class.

Secondly, in terms of science, there are no current alternatives to evolution. Evolution will not be tossed out. Period. While the fine details may change in the long run--just as the fine details in astronomy changes to fit with new evidence--these fine details are generally of no concern high school students who only get an overview of it, compared to in-depth collegiate study.

Third, even if there are questions regarding evolution, that does not automatically give weight to ID. That is the greatest logical fallacy that ID proponents have. ID has to survive scientific scrutiny, which it has resoundedly failed on every occasion. As such, even with no specific mention of God or specific theology, it is nothing but a pseudoscience that will hurt American students' scientific credibility worldwide.

End of story.

Just to note, the judge in this case is an appointee of President Bush. So, no, this isn't some hippie liberal "activist judge" here.

Melon
 
Last edited:
"Just to note, the judge in this case is an appointee of President Bush. So, no, this isn't some hippie liberal "activist judge" here."

Very well put, melon.

I have to say that this is one of the MOST COURAGEOUS judicial decisions that I have seen in many years!

Of course, I agree 100% with Judge Jones. :up:

I was raised a Christian and am trying my best to actually live up to that title in my personal life, but I will NEVER agree with trying to put this type of pseudo-creationist "theory" in public schools.

Schools which are paid for by EVERYONE'S tax dollars - Christian or not. If you want to raise your children in a religious learning environment, then do what my parents had to struggle financially to do for twelve years - GO TO A PAROCHIAL SCHOOL. :yes:

I benefited from my years in religious instruction and wouldn't have wanted it any other way, but I respect people of other schooling philosophies enough to NOT IMPOSE MY PREFERENCES ON THEM.

Let God judge the secularists if they need judgment, but allow Caesar what is his - public education which is secular and unfetterred by any religious domination.

Happy Holidays. :)
 
melon said:


ID is fundamentalist Christian creationism in disguise. No other religion trumpets it. Even Catholic schools teach "Darwinism" in science class.

Secondly, in terms of science, there are no current alternatives to evolution. Evolution will not be tossed out. Period. While the fine details may change in the long run--just as the fine details in astronomy changes to fit with new evidence--these fine details are generally of no concern high school students who only get an overview of it, compared to in-depth collegiate study.

Third, even if there are questions regarding evolution, that does not automatically give weight to ID. That is the greatest logical fallacy that ID proponents have. ID has to survive scientific scrutiny, which it has resoundedly failed on every occasion. As such, even with no specific mention of God or specific theology, it is nothing but a pseudoscience that will hurt American students' scientific credibility worldwide.

End of story.

Just to note, the judge in this case is an appointee of President Bush. So, no, this isn't some hippie liberal "activist judge" here.

Melon


well summarized.

there is no debate between evolutionism and intelligent design. there are no alternatives to evolution, at least not in any meaningful way -- are there alternatives to gravity?

the only debate should be over how much damage the media and "organized political right wing christians" have done to science education in this country.
 
Would it be wrong to require churches to teach evolution or alternative theories to their beliefs?
 
nbcrusader said:
Knowing that we've already debated evolution v. ID, set aside your desired outcome in the case and analyze the judge's thought process. At what point is the school establishing religion?

1. Identifying Evolution as "just a theory"?

2. Inviting students to consider alternatives?

3. Mentioning Intelligent Design?

I note that the description of intelligent design does not even mention the word God.

If Intelligent Design = religion, what religion is it??

I'm so tired of people referring to the evolution theory as just a theory. this notion implies that there is something fishy about a theory. "theory" in the scientific community means something entirely different than in casual conversation. Scientific theories require a tremendous load of evidence as opposed to my theory concerning who eat the last oreo in my house.
 
mattgerth said:
Would it be wrong to require churches to teach evolution or alternative theories to their beliefs?



no. churches can do whatever they want. no one has to go to church. it's voluntary association, unlike a public school.

if one goes to a private school, one can have all the superstition-in-place-of-science one wants.
 
Irvine511 said:




no. churches can do whatever they want. no one has to go to church. it's voluntary association, unlike a public school.

if one goes to a private school, one can have all the superstition-in-place-of-science one wants.

You aren't required to go to public school. Home school and private schools are options.
 
mattgerth said:


You aren't required to go to public school. Home school and private schools are options.



you are required to go to some sort of school, and the public schools are funded by taxes in order to educate students.

not everyone can afford private school and not everyone wants to be homeschooled, and more impotantly, there are millions of American kids who go to decent public schools, like i did, who simply don't need or want to have to deal with superstitions in a science classroom.
 
Irvine511 said:




you are required to go to some sort of school, and the public schools are funded by taxes in order to educate students.

not everyone can afford private school and not everyone wants to be homeschooled,

Isn't that were the school voucher program comes into play?
 
mattgerth said:


Isn't that were the school voucher program comes into play?



depends on the city.

it might be a way to "punish" public schools by removing students and their funds who disagree with non-theocratic teaching. i also think that "no child left behind" has much to do with the voucher program -- by requiring high standards, and then refusing to fund the schools to meet these standards, the Bush administration has essentially set up thousands of public schools to fail, and to then be labled "failing," thus creating a greater sense of urgency on the "need" for vouchers so that parents might remove their children from "failing" schools.

it's ingenous, really, if one's long term goal is not just the dismatnling of the Department of Education, but public education itself.
 
While I'm not crazy about tax dollars being used to teach ID/religion, I do think that if a class on ID is offered, it should be a philosophy class, not a science class, and taking it should be an elective, not a requirement.
 
cydewaze said:
While I'm not crazy about tax dollars being used to teach ID/religion, I do think that if a class on ID is offered, it should be a philosophy class, not a science class, and taking it should be an elective, not a requirement.



would you support the same elective classes on Hindu theories of reincarnation, as well as other religion's explanations of the origin of life? why should ID get preferential treatment than other religious myths?
 
Irvine511 said:
would you support the same elective classes on Hindu theories of reincarnation, as well as other religion's explanations of the origin of life?
Sure, why not? Those would be very interesting classes. I like learning about what other societies believe. Just keep them where they belong (social studies, or whatever) and don't offer them as science.

In fact, I think a "religions of the world" class would be a cool thing to take. As an American I'd welcome the chance to learn more about other societies, because we can be a little isolated when it comes international things.
 
cydewaze said:

Sure, why not? Those would be very interesting classes. I like learning about what other societies believe. Just keep them where they belong (social studies, or whatever) and don't offer them as science.

In fact, I think a "religions of the world" class would be a cool thing to take. As an American I'd welcome the chance to learn more about other societies, because we can be a little isolated when it comes international things.


:up:

in the context of a religion class, i totally agree.
 
I took a religions of the world type class when I went to a Catholic college, I loved it. And trust me, it/the professor NEVER made any type of value judgment about any of the other religions. My CCD ed and upbringing didn't expose me to much about other religions. I think it's one way to open up kids' eyes to other religions and other ways of thinking.
 
I went to a Catholic school all the way up to University and in high school we were required to take "World Religions" - it was a mandatory course for everyone.
 
anitram said:
I went to a Catholic school all the way up to University and in high school we were required to take "World Religions" - it was a mandatory course for everyone.



ah yes ... know thy enemy.









;)
 
cydewaze said:
While I'm not crazy about tax dollars being used to teach ID/religion, I do think that if a class on ID is offered, it should be a philosophy class, not a science class, and taking it should be an elective, not a requirement.
this is exactly where the discussion belongs...in a philosophy class. Anyone who thinks schools are opposed to God should go to philosophy classes. God is constantly mentioned. Some of the greatest philosophers ever believed in some sort of God; some didn't.
 
blueyedpoet said:

this is exactly where the discussion belongs...in a philosophy class. Anyone who thinks schools are opposed to God should go to philosophy classes. God is constantly mentioned. Some of the greatest philosophers ever believed in some sort of God; some didn't.

If a PhD mathmetician theorizes that evolution is mathematically impossible, does this still belong in a philosophy/religion class? Can science handle the questioning?
 
nbcrusader said:


If a PhD mathmetician theorizes that evolution is mathematically impossible, does this still belong in a philosophy/religion class? Can science handle the questioning?


simply because there might be questions about evolution, and that the theory itself might well evolve, this still has nothing to do with theistic claims of a grand designer. such a claim by a PhD would remain rooted in and of science, not of philosophy or theology, and would thereby have a place in a science class. if such results by a PhD mathematician were then appropriated by ID proponants as proof of ID, based upon their premise that any questions or alterations of Evolution become de facto evidence of ID have misunderstood, entirely, how science works

the judge says this perfectly: "ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed." what ID proponants have done is create what's been called a "contrived dualism"—the bogus assumption that "all scientific evidence which fails to support the theory of evolution is necessarily scientific evidence in support of creationism."

at the end of the day, the PhD mathematician is not testing ID; he is testing evolution.
 
Back
Top Bottom