Court Ruling: Intelligent Design Not Science [Archive]

Hurin_Rules

12-20-2005, 18:48

And the Judge blasts the religious right for hypocrisy to boot (I just had to include that little highlight first):

'The judge made a point of singling out the school board members and the "breathtaking inanity" of the decision for criticism. “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," he wrote.'

The full article:

Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’
'Religious alternative' to evolution cannot be taught in public school classes

Updated: 12:28 p.m. ET Dec. 20, 2005
HARRISBURG, Pa. - "Intelligent design" is "a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory" and 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.

“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 citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy,” Jones wrote, adding that several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs.

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 conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child," Jones said.

The school board policy, adopted in October 2004, was believed to have been the first of its kind in the nation. It 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” and referred students to an intelligent-design textbook, “Of Pandas and People,” for more information.

Jones blasted the disclaimer, saying it "singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource and instructs students to forgo scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere."

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 judge made a point of singling out the school board members and the "breathtaking inanity" of the decision for criticism. “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," he wrote.

“Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge," Jones wrote. "If so, they will have erred. ... 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 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.”

Case divided the community
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.

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.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

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

Redleg

12-20-2005, 19:05

Care to place your bets that it gets appealed to the Supreme Court?

Hurin_Rules

12-20-2005, 19:24

Care to place your bets that it gets appealed to the Supreme Court?

I'm absolutley certain it will-- that, I think, was why the lobby group supported the school board in the first place. But from the decisiveness of this ruling, I'm not sure that there is even grounds for an appeal.

Hurin_Rules

12-20-2005, 19:34

Here's a link to a .pdf of the entire reading, for you legal aficionados:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmiller.pdf

Marcellus

12-20-2005, 19:56

Finally, some sense has returned to Pennsylvania schools!

Gawain of Orkeny

12-20-2005, 20:14

But from the decisiveness of this ruling, I'm not sure that there is even grounds for an appeal.

Thats exactly why it will be appealed, The judge clearly has an agenda.

Red Harvest

12-20-2005, 20:30

Thats exactly why it will be appealed, The judge clearly has an agenda.

Yes, he called liars "liars." Shocking...

It's funny, they always have an agenda when they rule against you.

:cheerleader: :elephant: :cheerleader: :elephant: :cheerleader:

Red Harvest

12-20-2005, 20:36

What is ironic is that I've always considered a sort of intelligent design approach plausible. In fact, I don't see any need for it to reject ANY of the science done so far. Evolution is not really at odds with Creationism...I worked that out on my own when I was fourteen.

The problem is that Intelligent Design and Creationism are not science, they are theological constructs. You must rely on faith, rather than proof for either of them.

I don't know about others, but I want science and the courts to work with concepts of reason and proof, rather than faith.

Gawain of Orkeny

12-20-2005, 20:44

Yes, he called liars "liars." Shocking...

It's funny, they always have an agenda when they rule against you.

So you think this guy was totally openminded.

The problem is that Intelligent Design and Creationism are not science, they are theological constructs. You must rely on faith, rather than proof for either of them.

Pretty much the same for science. Theres little thats really proveable. Its mostly based on the best quess at the moment and faith in science.

Spetulhu

12-20-2005, 22:38

Pretty much the same for science. Theres little thats really proveable. Its mostly based on the best quess at the moment and faith in science.

Science looks at the facts and tries to reach a conclusion. Creationists look at the conclusion and pick the facts that support it. Pretty good difference there. :san_laugh:

Geoffrey S

12-20-2005, 22:47

Pretty much the same for science. Theres little thats really proveable. Its mostly based on the best quess at the moment and faith in science.
A matter on which I disagree. There's a lot of doubt, and (the better) scientists would be the first to admit it; but that's quite a difference from having no experimental or trustworthy first-hand indications as to the correctness of most accepted scientific theories, as I find is the case in religion. In the case of ID, it is purely making up facts to fit a conclusion and should most certainly not be considered science; if it belongs anywhere, it's in theology lessons. Darwinism, if tought correctly, should be aimed squarely at showing how species evolved, but it in no way proves or disproves the involvement of some kind of higher power and this should be left out of class; again, the possible implications of Darwinism belong in theology lessons.

Regardless, the people on either side of the debate I respect the most are those who are willing to admit that there is no absolute certainty; constant doubt and questioning is as much a factor in religion as in science, if it's to mean anything at all.

Red Harvest

12-20-2005, 22:58

Science looks at the facts and tries to reach a conclusion. Creationists look at the conclusion and pick the facts that support it. Pretty good difference there. :san_laugh:
Exactly. And most of science is provable...unlike Gawain's claims to the contrary. When parts are disproven they are removed or updated. It is the difference between faith and testing ideas. You can't prove or disprove something that is based on faith. Gawain seems to be lost by the idea that proving something is not an absolute.

Regardless of what the Religious Right thinks, ID is not science and has no place in a science class. If it was a religious studies class, then it would be another matter.

But the funniest part is still watching the RR flagellate over this when evolution is not contrary to Christianity. Why do they do it? Because they hate the idea of separation of church and state and they want to extend their personal religious views into the public schools so that they can evangelize to others.

Kaiser of Arabia

12-20-2005, 23:01

Thats exactly why it will be appealed, The judge clearly has an agenda.
Exactly.

Rodion Romanovich

12-20-2005, 23:04

Pretty much the same for science. Theres little thats really proveable. Its mostly based on the best quess at the moment and faith in science.

Actually the serious types of science isn't at all aiming for finding the absolute truth, that's what philosophy and religion are for. Science is used as a tool for creating useful technology mostly, and the proof of it's sucessfulness can be seen around us every day. There's also unserious science and that's what usually makes it to the newspapers. I'd say 90 percent of all science that's described in the newspapers is unscientific, at best. Sometimes it's even pure lies. So take science for what it is - not the absolute truth, but a tool. The cases where science fails are often when you make too long chains of theoretical reasoning with inaccurate models. But sometimes you can make very good models, where extremely long series of conclusion making gives a result that experiments later confirm. Then you have a model that can claim to be close to the absolute truth, if there is any, but not the entire truth. For instance gases are a system of billions of particles moving as a result of billions of forces acting upon them. We can make an accurate model for calculations and predictions of many things by describing this complex system of forces and movements as random and the formula: pV = nRT. However, we should know that we're in reality "lying" about the entire truth when we apply it. We must know that it only works under certain circumstances, and which limitations it has.

In any case I wonder (I don't have the facts about the consequences of this particular court ruling) if this means creationism, i.e. the first part of Genesis of the Torah and Bible, will be removed altogether from school? The opposite result would imply putting creationism in the biology classes, which would be absurd, as biology classes are about biology science. Creationism should be taught in religion classes of course. If not, then it's a nearly as big scandal as removal of evolution from biology would be (the only reason why I finally find the latter slightly more scandalous is because evolution is a necessary tool to understand much modern science, and it has also seen service in some other fields such as artificial intelligence, which means computing engineering of the USA would be crippled if evolution would be taken out of the biology classes).

Red Harvest

12-20-2005, 23:08

So you think this guy was totally openminded.

As much as any other judge. He doesn't have to remain open minded once he has reached a decision on the merits of his case. And the statements he made were based on the facts of the case.

If someone lies to the judge repeatedly, they should expect a scathing assessment of their argument. I disagree with the idea that judges should not scold when they have rendered a decision.

However, I also understand that this is an unwinnable argument with extremists. Anyone who can't understand the difference between science and faith is going to be at a loss to understand such a decision, and will see it as biased.

Judges ruling against conservative views are typically labelled "activist judges." Nothing new here...

Geoffrey S

12-20-2005, 23:11

However, we should know that we're in reality "lying" about the entire truth when we apply it. We must know that it only works under certain circumstances, and which limitations it has.
The key part of sciences, and the one thing I've definitely had hammered into me at school over the years.

Creationism should be taught in religion classes of course. If not, then it's a nearly as big scandal as removal of evolution from biology would be.
That's what I liked about our religious classes. It went in-depth in a number of faiths, their origins and particularly the point in which they coincide with eachother; from Christianity to Islam, Mormons to Confucians. It was generally quite interesting, and the general theme was to look at where we're alike rather than at differences.

Kralizec

12-21-2005, 00:42

A well crafted ruling, indeed.

Playing the devils advocate: what are the chances that if it does make it to the SCOTU, the appealing party (the creationists) could stall enough time for one of the secular minded judges to die (I understand most of them are quite old), be replaced by a conservative judge by Bush, thus tipping the balance in ID's favour :san_huh:

Gawain of Orkeny

12-21-2005, 00:56

Tribesman

12-21-2005, 01:12

Kralizec

12-21-2005, 01:18

his will be overturned no doubt.. Not religion nor god nor ID was even mentioned nevermind taught by the boards ruling.

Boards don't teach anything. Boards determine what teachers should teach. In this case a board ordered that ID should be tought as an alternative to evolution in a scientific context.

Its was more like a disclaimer at the start of teaching something.

See above. You're probably confusing this with the sticker case, wich was a different case with the same subject.

Then of course there is also the credible claim that Darwin converted to christianity and renounced evolution as we see it today.

LINK (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-29,GGLD:en&q=darwin+converted+to+christianity)

Good going, by presenting a google query as a supporting element for your argument :san_laugh:

From one of the more suspiciously sounding sites (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp) on the first page:

It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people.

Hurin_Rules

12-21-2005, 01:18

Then of course there is also the credible claim
Gawain , I know you have a fondness for some strange sources for "facts" , but do you know the meaning of the word "credible" ?
Or did you even read any of the links you just posted ?:san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh:

Indeed. The very sources Gawain cites refute the specious 'Lady Hope' story. And even if it were true, it would not change the science.

Tribesman

12-21-2005, 01:29

Indeed. The very sources Gawain cites refute the specious 'Lady Hope' story.
No no no , the one with the dinosaurs and humans living in harmony supports it , (2nd or 3rd one down):san_laugh:

Goofball

12-21-2005, 01:46

Thats exactly why it will be appealed, The judge clearly has an agenda.

What utter tripe.

Yes, his "agenda" was to uphold your Constitution in the face of utter arrogance from a group of lobbyists who definitely have an agenda: to force their religios beliefs on impressionable children in the public school system regardless of the wishes and beliefs of those childrens' parents.

Pretty much the same for science. Theres little thats really proveable. Its mostly based on the best quess at the moment and faith in science.

You obviously do not understand (or refuse to understand) the scientific method.

Gawain of Orkeny

12-21-2005, 01:57

See above. You're probably confusing this with the sticker case, wich was a different case with the same subject.

Your right I was looking at the Dover case.

You obviously do not understand (or refuse to understand) the scientific method.

I majored in science in college I think I understand it.

Good going, by presenting a google query as a supporting element for your argument

If you read the whole thing yu would see it leaves the desicion up to the reader.

Yes, his "agenda" was to uphold your Constitution in the face of utter arrogance from a group of lobbyists who definitely have an agen

You mean trample it dont you? I would remind you that it used to be that a school had to teach both the Bible and Christianity. The founding fathers had no such notion of seperation of church and state as some of you have today.

Besides as far as I can see the only thing different between ID and say biology is that ID says a higher power designed biology that way. What are you all so afraid of?

Goofball

12-21-2005, 02:11

You obviously do not understand (or refuse to understand) the scientific method.I majored in science in college I think I understand it.

Ask for a tuition refund; you were robbed.

Yes, his "agenda" was to uphold your Constitution in the face of utter arrogance from a group of lobbyists who definitely have an agenda: to force their religios beliefs on impressionable children in the public school system regardless of the wishes and beliefs of those childrens' parents.You mean trample it dont you? I would remind you that it used to be that a school had to teach both the Bible and Christianity. The founding fathers had no such notion of seperation of church and state as some of you have today.

While you're at it, see if you can get tuition refunds if you took any of these elective courses:

1) Civics/government
2) American history
3) Debating

:san_kiss:

Hurin_Rules

12-21-2005, 02:16

Thats exactly why it will be appealed, The judge clearly has an agenda.

Yes he does: A Republican one.

The guy was head of the transition team of Tom Ridge, the Republican governor of Pennsylvania (1995-2001) and now appointed by Bush as the first Secretary of Homeland Security:

links:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:l_0RW-PX44AJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Ridge+%22tom+ridge%22+biography&hl=en

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:7mm0PNLa8vwJ:www.pamd.uscourts.gov/bios/jones.htm+U.S.+District+Judge+%22John+E.+Jones%22&hl=en

But I'm sure he's secretly a God-hating, homosexual communist or something, right Gawain?

Kralizec

12-21-2005, 02:21

Oooh, sweet, delicious irony! *slurp*

Gawain of Orkeny

12-21-2005, 02:22

Ask for a tuition refund; you were robbed.

Look you have no idea of what I know about science. Personal attacks are generally below you. This was totally uncalled for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
You obviously do not understand (or refuse to understand) the scientific method.

I majored in science in college I think I understand it.

Ask for a tuition refund; you were robbed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Yes, his "agenda" was to uphold your Constitution in the face of utter arrogance from a group of lobbyists who definitely have an agenda: to force their religios beliefs on impressionable children in the public school system regardless of the wishes and beliefs of those childrens' parents.

You mean trample it dont you? I would remind you that it used to be that a school had to teach both the Bible and Christianity. The founding fathers had no such notion of seperation of church and state as some of you have today.

While you're at it, see if you can get tuition refunds if you took any of these elective courses:

1) Civics/government
2) American history
3) Debating

Oh you want to keep it up? For shame on you Goofball. I used to respect you.

But I'm sure he's secretly a God-hating, homosexual communist or something, right Gawain?

Look one more time. The only difference between whats taught about evolution and ID is that those who belive in ID think some higher power created everything that way. What the hell are you all afraid of the very idea of their being a god so frightning? All ID does is fill in the holes in the theory of evolution. You teach the class exactly as you do in regular biology.

Red Harvest

12-21-2005, 02:26

his will be overturned no doubt.. Not religion nor god nor ID was even mentioned nevermind taught by the boards ruling.

Its was more like a disclaimer at the start of teaching something. Then of course there is also the credible claim that Darwin converted to christianity and renounced evolution as we see it today.

Gawain, nothing you posted above is true. In fact, I'm having trouble finding anything you've posted in the thread that represents a fair representation of the truth. Got news for you, just saying it doesn't make it true (do me a favor and pass that on to Rush and Bush.)

Let's take a look at the ruling...note the items in italics. Care to rephrase any of that? Here is an idea, actually review the matter a little first before being so certain.

On October 18, 2004, the Defendant Dover Area School Board of Directors
passed by a 6-3 vote the following resolution:

Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of Life is not taught.

On November 19, 2004, the Defendant Dover Area School District announced by press release that, commencing in January 2005, teachers would be required to read the following statement to students in the ninth grade biology class at Dover High School:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not
a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their
families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

It's a rather clear cut endorsement of one over the other. School distribution of a separate book for ID is also listed. Note that there is no mention of the lack of support for Intelligent Design as a theory. So why all the disclaimers on Darwinism?

And of course there is the reality that the normal course was taken politically, fundamentalists hijacked the school board. They are pretty good at getting out the vote for local elections so they can evangelize to the MAJORITY later. However, the sleeping majorty awakened and ejected the scoundrels in the next election (all eight that were up for re-election IIRC.)

It's rather obvious who has what agenda on this matter...

What I've read so far of the ruling in the pdf looks pretty strong (but I'm not an attorney.) Looks to me they will have an uphill fight on appeal, instead going for bias approaches to set aside the verdict and ignoring the facts of the case. Pretty much par for the course for the religious right.

Red Harvest

12-21-2005, 02:39

Your right I was looking at the Dover case.
:san_huh: Isn't that the one that this topic is about?

I majored in science in college I think I understand it.
That's a shock because nothing you have said in this thread demonstrates an understanding of it.

Hurin_Rules

12-21-2005, 02:45

For those of you who love irony, CBS News is reporting that the judge is a Bush appointee.

Tribesman

12-21-2005, 02:49

Look you have no idea of what I know about science.
OK , basic science , gather the available data , examine it , find a conclusion based on that data.
Soooooo........
Look here is a series of links that contradict what I am saying , apart from one of questionable credibility that uses an example that is demolished piecemeal in all the other links , absolute proof that what I am saying is correct .:san_rolleyes:

Proletariat

12-21-2005, 02:57

I can't be bothered reading a whole 'nother thread on this tired subject, but I'll never understand why a Christian would be upset by this. I remember hearing somewhere in the Bible about what one could do with just one mustard seed of faith, yet there are still those that need a scientific vindication of their belief.

The two theories aren't mutually exclusive. This is just as stupid as the Xmas/Holiday ordeal.

Atheists, no one is seriously trying to convert your children. Christians, no one is threatening your beliefs. People who rebel against strawman authorities, please shut up and quit pretending there's a fight or a contradiction here.

Red Harvest

12-21-2005, 02:58

For those of you who love irony, CBS News is reporting that the judge is a Bush appointee.
So he must be carrying out the Bush agenda of appointing activist judges, right? :san_huh:

:san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh:

This is tooooooooooooo funny.

Proletariat

12-21-2005, 02:59

Edit: Eh, forget it.

Ronin

12-21-2005, 03:08

common sense prevails.....gotta love it.

Xiahou

12-21-2005, 03:24

What is ironic is that I've always considered a sort of intelligent design approach plausible. In fact, I don't see any need for it to reject ANY of the science done so far. Evolution is not really at odds with Creationism...I worked that out on my own when I was fourteen.
Truly, the two are not mutually exclusive....

However, I really don't understand where what the school district was doing violated anything in the Constitution. You could argue it's bad science or that it has no place in science class- however, that's not an issue that requires federal courts to decide.... maybe a new school board or intervention by the state legislature would be in order though. :shrug:

Redleg

12-21-2005, 03:39

Truly, the two are not mutually exclusive....

However, I really don't understand where what the school district was doing violated anything in the Constitution. You could argue it's bad science or that it has no place in science class- however, that's not an issue that requires federal courts to decide.... maybe a new school board or intervention by the state legislature would be in order though. :shrug:

I got to agree - it doesn't really seem to me to be an issue of constitutional law. And the matter I believe has been settled by the citizens when they voted out the old school board and replaced it with new members.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/09/tech/main1027359.shtml

Soulforged

12-21-2005, 04:09

I got to agree - it doesn't really seem to me to be an issue of constitutional law. And the matter I believe has been settled by the citizens when they voted out the old school board and replaced it with new members.
"The Constitution guarantees the religious freedom of all Americans in two ways -- by protecting our individual right to worship and by ensuring separation between church and state. According to the Constitution as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court, the government cannot promote or oppose specific religious views or doctrines. Creationism, creation science, and intelligent design theory are all unquestionably religious doctrines. Therefore, the government cannot promote them as science without violating the First Amendment." LINK (http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/create/creationism_QA.asp#2)
I think it has something to do with that. The simple interpretation of the first amendement should be enough.
It's good to see that sense has come back up there. Not only for the respect of other believers, but also for the respect of science.
Faith is already overvalored in the church, keep it there. In chains will be best...:san_wink:

Red Harvest

12-21-2005, 04:40

However, I really don't understand where what the school district was doing violated anything in the Constitution. You could argue it's bad science or that it has no place in science class- however, that's not an issue that requires federal courts to decide.... maybe a new school board or intervention by the state legislature would be in order though. :shrug:
Because it IS a constitutional issue. It is clearly a matter of religious authorities hijacking public entities to push THEIR religious message down my kids' throats and over MY objection. I object and want to see it handled at a Federal level. I certainly don't trust the clowns that elected DeLay to make such decisions (where I presently live.) The Federal govt does protect us from the lunacy and backwardness of local feudal lords. (That's what the Civil Rights movement was really about in the South afterall.)

It's pretty darned simple: Don't try to push your particular brand of religion in school in an official setting. If evangelical types could understand when they were crossing the line, then a lot of the current restrictions would not be necessary.

Xiahou

12-21-2005, 05:08

Because it IS a constitutional issue. It is clearly a matter of religious authorities hijacking public entities to push THEIR religious message down my kids' throats and over MY objection. I object and want to see it handled at a Federal level. I certainly don't trust the clowns that elected DeLay to make such decisions (where I presently live.) The Federal govt does protect us from the lunacy and backwardness of local feudal lords. (That's what the Civil Rights movement was really about in the South afterall.)You don't even have an interest in this case... or do you have children in the Dover school district in PA? I thought you lived in Texas? If they try to do it in your school district, where your tax dollars will support it, then bitch and moan all you want about it. Even better, vote out your school board- like they did in Dover. How is it a Constitutional issue? You saying it is doesnt make it so.

hellenes

12-21-2005, 05:27

The only thing that I have to say that:
We have gone from religious dogmatism and the persecution of scientists to scientific dogmatism and persecution of religion.
Which is very sad...

Hellenes

Gawain of Orkeny

12-21-2005, 05:34

This will never stand. Accordding to this judges reasoning we can no longer teach the Declaration of Independance in school

Because it IS a constitutional issue. It is clearly a matter of religious authorities hijacking public entities to push THEIR religious message down my kids' throats and over MY objection

So mentioning that here might be a god is establishing a religion now? How about them ramming their secularist message down my kids' throats and over MY objection. Both sides deserve mention. Again they were not being taught ID it was just mentioned at the start of the year.

Redleg

12-21-2005, 05:45

"The Constitution guarantees the religious freedom of all Americans in two ways -- by protecting our individual right to worship and by ensuring separation between church and state. According to the Constitution as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court, the government cannot promote or oppose specific religious views or doctrines. Creationism, creation science, and intelligent design theory are all unquestionably religious doctrines. Therefore, the government cannot promote them as science without violating the First Amendment." LINK (http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/create/creationism_QA.asp#2)
I think it has something to do with that. The simple interpretation of the first amendement should be enough.
It's good to see that sense has come back up there. Not only for the respect of other believers, but also for the respect of science.
Faith is already overvalored in the church, keep it there. In chains will be best...:san_wink:

Care to point out in the Constitution where it states - Freedom from religion?

A simple interpation of the 1st Amendment states that the will not be an establishment of religion by the government. It does not say that it can not be present.

Again the issue is not one for the Federal Courts. The citizens of Dover already weighed into the measure by voting out the school board.

Redleg

12-21-2005, 05:48

Because it IS a constitutional issue. It is clearly a matter of religious authorities hijacking public entities to push THEIR religious message down my kids' throats and over MY objection. I object and want to see it handled at a Federal level. I certainly don't trust the clowns that elected DeLay to make such decisions (where I presently live.) The Federal govt does protect us from the lunacy and backwardness of local feudal lords. (That's what the Civil Rights movement was really about in the South afterall.)

It's pretty darned simple: Don't try to push your particular brand of religion in school in an official setting. If evangelical types could understand when they were crossing the line, then a lot of the current restrictions would not be necessary.

Care to point out in the Consitution where it states freedom of Religion means that the court decides if something is taught in the schools or not?

Again not even close to a constitutional issue in my opinion. A religious based decision by the School Board was corrected by the voters - when they voted them out of office. It should of never even been filed in a Federal COurt - at most it was a State issue in the first place.

Adrian II

12-21-2005, 08:10

After the disturbing stories about education in Kansas and the creationism bill in the Pennsylvania legislature, this looks like a real victory (and a great relief) for parents. For the time being, no Pennsylvanian kid will be taught that there are four elements in the universe: Earth, Wind, Fire, and Water, and that they are all held together by Father Design and Mother Mumbo Jumbo.

EDIT
These stickers are by Colin Purrington, a Pennsylvania biologist vehemently opposed to the 'other' stickers.

https://img469.imageshack.us/img469/3051/textbookdisclaimers0zi.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

English assassin

12-21-2005, 11:05

Wow, a small victory for rationality. Almost unbelievable that it was necessary, but I'll take it. As for Prole's frustration that we are going over this again, yes, me too. I though we settled this in 1860, or at the latest in the Monkey trial, but it seems some people just won't quit will they?

Red, not being funny here, and I dare say you know more about your constitution than I do (in fact I'm sure of it) but have you reflected on the fact that the judge evidently DID think this was a legal issue? Do you really think that the spending of taxpayers money should be outside any legal control?

The_Doctor

12-21-2005, 11:39

My understand is that the conflict is between:
Evolution by Natural Selection and Evolution by Intelligent Design.

Not Evolution Vs Intelligent Design.

Is this right?

Red Harvest

12-21-2005, 17:55

Care to point out in the Constitution where it states - Freedom from religion?

A simple interpation of the 1st Amendment states that the will not be an establishment of religion by the government. It does not say that it can not be present.

Again the issue is not one for the Federal Courts. The citizens of Dover already weighed into the measure by voting out the school board.

Go read the ruling again, it will explain the legal aspects far better than I can. My take is that this IS govt. estalbishment of religion, plain and simple. Yes, it is a small thing, but a first step by a local school board. It is a constitutional issue and appropriate for Federal courts. If you don't nip it, then you will see more pushing of the envelope. This was an attempt to subvert existing rulings.

This is precisely why we have a constitution, to prevent state and local govts. from creating inequitable systems. The Civil Rights movement and Jim Crow Laws are the best modern example of how utterly corrupt state and local majority rule can be.

The constitution provideds defense against the tyranny of the majority. That is why I find this States Rights/Local Rights approach so amusing. The real push is to use them to create an inequitable system. States rights are popular, because they are tools to be manipulated by local majorities everywhere to get a leg up on the minorities in the states (I mean that in the political sense, not racial, etc.)

If the school board had not been voted out, then by your reasoning it would have been acceptable. Wrong. It is not. It is an unreasonable endorsement of theology in place of science in a science class. Beyond that it is inequitable as it lifts one theology above others.

Goofball

12-21-2005, 17:59

Look you have no idea of what I know about science. Personal attacks are generally below you. This was totally uncalled for.

You're absolutely right G. I had meant my comments to be funny but after having re-read them I agree with you; they were mean.

My apologies. I feel shame...

:sorry:

Edit: spelling

Red Harvest

12-21-2005, 18:02

Red, not being funny here, and I dare say you know more about your constitution than I do (in fact I'm sure of it) but have you reflected on the fact that the judge evidently DID think this was a legal issue? Do you really think that the spending of taxpayers money should be outside any legal control?

I'm not at all sure what you are asking. :san_huh: It is a legal issue *because* it is a constitutional issue. It is Federal court issue because public schools receive Federal funding. At least that is my understanding of how this works. You have federal funds being used to support a local theological agenda. That is not local or state matter, but a federal one.

Red Harvest

12-21-2005, 18:10

You don't even have an interest in this case... or do you have children in the Dover school district in PA? I thought you lived in Texas? If they try to do it in your school district, where your tax dollars will support it, then bitch and moan all you want about it. Even better, vote out your school board- like they did in Dover. How is it a Constitutional issue? You saying it is doesnt make it so.

I have an interest in the case because it is my Federal tax dollars going to the district. I also have an interest in it because if it is allowed there, it will be allowed anywhere that wants to do the same. All it takes is few religious fanatics on the schoolboard and there you go. This gets back to the difference between us: I see the big picture and think long term, you stick to the short term and ignore the surrounding environment.

If you want to understand how it is a constitutional matter, read the pdf.

Goofball

12-21-2005, 18:22

You don't even have an interest in this case... or do you have children in the Dover school district in PA? I thought you lived in Texas? If they try to do it in your school district, where your tax dollars will support it, then bitch and moan all you want about it.

I'm glad you feel that way. After taking that position, I know you would never even dream of using the "slippery slope" argument if another gay marriage thread ever pops up.

Kanamori

12-21-2005, 19:44

Go read the ruling again, it will explain the legal aspects far better than I can. My take is that this IS govt. estalbishment of religion, plain and simple. Yes, it is a small thing, but a first step by a local school board. It is a constitutional issue and appropriate for Federal courts. If you don't nip it, then you will see more pushing of the envelope. This was an attempt to subvert existing rulings.

This is precisely why we have a constitution, to prevent state and local govts. from creating inequitable systems. The Civil Rights movement and Jim Crow Laws are the best modern example of how utterly corrupt state and local majority rule can be.

The constitution provideds defense against the tyranny of the majority. That is why I find this States Rights/Local Rights approach so amusing. The real push is to use them to create an inequitable system. States rights are popular, because they are tools to be manipulated by local majorities everywhere to get a leg up on the minorities in the states (I mean that in the political sense, not racial, etc.)

If the school board had not been voted out, then by your reasoning it would have been acceptable. Wrong. It is not. It is an unreasonable endorsement of theology in place of science in a science class. Beyond that it is inequitable as it lifts one theology above others.

This decision is based on faulty precedence, anyway, where does it say a State cannot respect any religion it wants? The Fourteenth amendment protects our immunities and rights, and the Establishment clause neither gives a right nor gives an immunity. I'm not sure about Pennsylvania's constitution, but the federal one shouldn't even extend to the states here, unless another amendment is passed, which I would be favorable to.

Edit: The fact that they receive federal funding is moot. It is not a federal body, and the funding does not favor promoting one view over another, as far as I know.

Viking

12-21-2005, 20:19

The whole thread is redundant because there is no science behind ID. It could perhaps be teached as philosophy.

@AdrianII

Some funny stickers you got there. :san_cool:

Tribesman

12-21-2005, 20:20

How about them ramming their secularist message down my kids' throats and over MY objection.
Ok fair enough , now coud you remind everyone of your objections and the links that you used to ridicule ... sorry .... support those objections ?
Anyway , what are your kids still doing in school ?

Red Harvest

12-21-2005, 20:24

This decision is based on faulty precedence, anyway, where does it say a State cannot respect any religion it wants? The Fourteenth amendment protects our immunities and rights, and the Establishment clause neither gives a right nor gives an immunity. I'm not sure about Pennsylvania's constitution, but the federal one shouldn't even extend to the states here, unless another amendment is passed, which I would be favorable to.
I don't buy this argument at all. Has any modern Federal precedent established that State sponsored religion is permissable? It doesn't make sense and it would quickly degenerate to the case of the majority (or political majority anyway) trying to push its religious views onto others through a public entity.

It all flies in the face of treating citizens equally and not promoting one group over others.

Edit: The fact that they receive federal funding is moot. It is not a federal body, and the funding does not favor promoting one view over another, as far as I know.
The funding would have to be pulled in order for it to be moot, because you are going to have a heckuva time proving that none of the funding is supporting that.

Kanamori

12-21-2005, 20:47

Has any modern Federal precedent established that State sponsored religion is permissable?

No, and it's irrelevant. SCOTUS is cracked up and makes whimsical interpretations of the bill of rights and the fourteenth amendment.

It doesn't make sense and it would quickly degenerate to the case of the majority (or political majority anyway) trying to push its religious views onto others through a public entity.

The Establishment Clause reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (LII (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html)).

Section one of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is the vehicle of many rights previously only given in protection from Congress, reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" (LII (All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.)).

First, the Establishment Clause neither gaurantees a privilege/right nor gives a legal immunity. And second, teaching a non-secular theory does not deny anyone equality under the law.

As to the second bit, I would be inclined to say that many states have constitutions which say something similar to the establishment clause.

The funding would have to be pulled in order for it to be moot, because you are going to have a heckuva time proving that none of the funding is supporting that.

Supporting something indirectly does not equate to respecting it. Congress would be respecting one religionif it gave special funding. If it gives funding regardless of what is being taught, it is not respecting one religion.

Red Harvest

12-21-2005, 21:04

This will never stand. Accordding to this judges reasoning we can no longer teach the Declaration of Independance in school
I didn't see anything about that in there. Another strawman...yawn.

So mentioning that here might be a god is establishing a religion now?

And another...you are going to run out of straw if you keep this up.

How about them ramming their secularist message down my kids' throats and over MY objection. Both sides deserve mention. If one wanted to go through every bit of education that conflicts with someone's theology somewhere, then there would not be much left to teach. School is a secular institution. Churches are for religious instruction and guidance. Some of us can tell the difference. (Some of us had real science educations that stuck with us for example...and perhaps we also received a bit better instruction in Christian principles since we are more concerned about our fellow man and earth, than the unfettered accumulation of wealth.)

What I would like to see is some other religion pushing their particular interpretation onto your kids, Allah akbar. Then see how you react. That is the real test. Too many on the religious right live in this fantasy that their particular view would be the one that would always be favored. They don't think much about others, just themselves.

It's funny when I recall my wife doing a Christmas program for a baptist church where the preacher referred to catholics among the "heathen" religions. (We're not catholic.) It is also funny when I mention to baptists that if they got what they wanted, they might find their children observing and participating in catholic rituals at school. Utah would be interesting...where ID and Kolob could get some shared time perhaps?

Again they were not being taught ID it was just mentioned at the start of the year.
The actual proclamation I quoted does not clarify when, but the wording is such that it would most likely not be read at the beginning of the year, but when the subject was reached as part of the course (they might coincide.) It is possible that it was done completely out of context--which would make it absolutely bizarre, but who knows with religious fanatics? Logic is not their strong suit.

In addition they were notified that they could get an ID book from the school. Pretty clear indication that it was being promoted over science by the school. Also absent was any statement about ID being full of holes...etc.

Strike For The South

12-21-2005, 21:09

Court Ruling: Intelligent Design Not Science

We Shall Overcome:charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge:

Red Harvest

12-21-2005, 21:15

No, and it's irrelevant. SCOTUS is cracked up and makes whimsical interpretations of the bill of rights and the fourteenth amendment.
It is entirely relevant. You are basing your argument on this premise that religion can be specifically promoted by State/local bodies.

First, the Establishment Clause neither gaurantees a privilege/right nor gives a legal immunity. And second, teaching a non-secular theory does not deny anyone equality under the law.
Sounds like another separate but equal argument. It's not gonna fly.

Supporting something indirectly does not equate to respecting it. Congress would be respecting one religionif it gave special funding. If it gives funding regardless of what is being taught, it is not respecting one religion.
I disagree. Aren't religious schools denied funding on this very basis? Can't say I'm overly familiar with it so I could be incorrect. I don't think they can choose to say, "we deserve X% funding because only a portion of our instruction is teaching theology."

Red Harvest

12-21-2005, 21:16

We Shall Overcome:charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge:
Ironic that you would quote a civil rights slogan in this context...

Kanamori

12-21-2005, 22:00

It is entirely relevant. You are basing your argument on this premise that religion can be specifically promoted by State/local bodies.

It is irrelevant, because SCOTUS has never been designated the final arbiter of the Constitution except by itself, and erroneosly so. Besides being irrelevant, it is incorrect. Even more basically: the fact that SCOTUS, if it were absolute, has not recognized that individual states can promote religions does not logically lead to the conclusion that states cannot promote religions. For example, when SCOTUS had never ruled in this area before, it was perfectly legal for states to teach aspects of religion in school, even though SCOTUS never recognized that they could.

Sounds like another separate but equal argument.

How so? I'm not seeing a link.

I disagree. Aren't religious schools denied funding on this very basis? Can't say I'm overly familiar with it so I could be incorrect.

Congress can give out funding as it wishes, as long as it doesn't give for the purpose of respecting that religion. They can deny to give funding whenever they want to. If they were motivated to deny them funding because of a ruling, their motivation is flawed.

Soulforged

12-22-2005, 00:51

Care to point out in the Consitution where it states freedom of Religion means that the court decides if something is taught in the schools or not?I was expecting that you'll not be satisfied with my post...Very well:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religionA mistake that we made here, stablish an official religion. Take this quote and reflect on it...it should come easy for you, but just in case SPOIL AHEAD:By stablishing a thing nominally banned as science and schooling it in public schools, you're officializing a religion, I think that you've to agree at least in that this ID is religion and not science, you only have to look at their "proof" or even it's "method",
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;This deserves the same explanation as well, by teaching religion as a science and a real view of this world you're forbiding the other fictionary vissions to be true (ie other religions). It also comes from the method of "faith" wich doesn't needs, or better said, refuses and repulses all manner of proof, for instance teaching it officially means that you're actually as Red Harvest sais: "push THEIR religious message down my kids' throats and over MY objection".
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.Well this final part has the same meaning regarding this case.

Through your Constitution there's a lot more of quotes that can be applied to the same principle. It doesn't has to be specifically written into the document, interpretation is always an important part of law.

Goofball

12-22-2005, 01:26

Strike For The South

12-22-2005, 01:30

Ironic that you would quote a civil rights slogan in this context...

Takes tounge out of cheek:san_kiss:

Red Harvest

12-22-2005, 02:19

It is irrelevant, because SCOTUS has never been designated the final arbiter of the Constitution except by itself, and erroneosly so.
Now you are getting into the ridiculous. Let's just reinvent the whole system! Nobody else has been designated the final arbiter either, and the system we have adopted has worked for proper checks and balances. The court found its niche, and it is a natural choice. It provides moderation to the political whims that could otherwise endanger the nation. (Look to Athens for an example of why such moderation is necessary for survival.)

The reality to me appears that on average SCOTUS shifts its views to match the electorate over time, but in a very slow way, lagging by a decade or two compared to the House. Sometimes it merely allows a fever to break (preventing what would later be viewed as outrages if they let matters stand), sometimes it actually injects something novel that changes perception of how something should be interpreted, and other times it is just slower to adapt, as its composition changes over a longer time span. In the latter instances it often looks to me like majority of SCOTUS does no more than construct a justification for a pre-determined result that satisfies the political backgrounds of the justices. (That can take time.)

Besides being irrelevant, it is incorrect. Even more basically: the fact that SCOTUS, if it were absolute, has not recognized that individual states can promote religions does not logically lead to the conclusion that states cannot promote religions.
With the previous comment, you shot down your argument as a practical matter.

For example, when SCOTUS had never ruled in this area before, it was perfectly legal for states to teach aspects of religion in school, even though SCOTUS never recognized that they could.
That's like saying it was perfectly safe to ride around without safety belts until they were required.

It wasn't necessarily perfectly legal, it simply had not been addressed. Until there is a challenge, the legality of legislation is not really known.

How so? I'm not seeing a link. When one religion or sect of a religion is promoted over others it sets in motion the same sort of discriminatory machinery as has been used in the past. One group is favored over another. Inequality is the result.

Congress can give out funding as it wishes, as long as it doesn't give for the purpose of respecting that religion. They can deny to give funding whenever they want to. If they were motivated to deny them funding because of a ruling, their motivation is flawed.
And SCOTUS can block it on a number of grounds as well. Checks and balances.

Red Harvest

12-22-2005, 02:30

What is really killing me about this thread is that those who are usually the ones complaining about "Islamo-fascism," and the fact that theocracies like the Taliban used their religion like a blunt instrument and forced it on people whether they wanted it or not (which they did, the complaint is valid), are now promoting the very same practice in their own country.

Good God people! Can you not see the duplicity in your own statements?

So, let me get this straight:

It's okay for the government to force religion on people, as long as that religion happens to be Christianity.
That is exactly the problem. I am dumbfounded by the blindness of my fellow Christians. Many appear unable to look at anything from outside their own perspective. They cannot see the consequences of their own actions.

And as many on both sides of this have agreed: neither Darwinism nor Creation are mutually exclusive. However, Darwinism is a scientific description of what we see, while ID is a theological description rather than a scientific theory.

Gawain of Orkeny

12-22-2005, 03:32

For example, when SCOTUS had never ruled in this area before, it was perfectly legal for states to teach aspects of religion in school, even though SCOTUS never recognized that they could.

Actually SCOTUS at one time said they had to. They said that christianity and the bible must be taught in school. Its only recently that this notion thet ReD Harvest has of a seperation of church and state came into being. It was started by a former KKK SCOTUS judge who hated Catholics.

Now you are getting into the ridiculous. Let's just reinvent the whole system!

Why not SCOTUS did . Besides you say

The reality to me appears that on average SCOTUS shifts its views to match the electorate over time

Thats not what its supposed to do is it? Its supposed to rule on the constitutionality of a law. Its views should followw the constitution and the constitution doesnt change unless its amendened. Its not the job of SCOTUS to change it as they see fit.

When one religion or sect of a religion is promoted over others it sets in motion the same sort of discriminatory machinery as has been used in the past. One group is favored over another. Inequality is the result.

What religion is being promoted in the 4 paragraphs? Again it seems only athiesm can now be promoted.

Red Harvest

12-22-2005, 04:28

Thats not what its supposed to do is it? Its supposed to rule on the constitutionality of a law. Its views should followw the constitution and the constitution doesnt change unless its amendened. Its not the job of SCOTUS to change it as they see fit.

Don't be naive. That's exactly what presidents do by packing the court. They choose people who have the desired reading. Despite overly facile approaches to the Constitution, it is far from clear in many matters. The terminology is general. If it were not, the interpretations would not be so varied. That's why intent is debated so heavily. If it was simple stop/go, yes/no then interpretation would be unnecessary. This is not 2+2 = ? Another natural assumption is that no document can be written that accounts for all possibilities, hence, the need to re-interpret as time passes.

Afterall anyone who thinks a BJ related private case perjury is a "high crime and misdemeanor" obviously needs their head examined (especially when you examine the Founding Father's debate on the matter.) Yet some do still make that laughable claim. And of course, the ball started rolling SCOTUS when it ruled that a civil case would not place undue burden on the presidency--quite possibly one of the most inept decisions in its history although certainly not one of its most important.

What religion is being promoted in the 4 paragraphs? Again it seems only athiesm can now be promoted.
Christian creationism. ID is based on that. Atheism is not promoted, science is. Unfortunately you seem to interpret science as being atheism. It is not.

Do you also consider your doctor an atheist because he doesn't suggest faith healing instead of medicine?

Xiahou

12-22-2005, 05:38

Sounds like another separate but equal argument.How so? I'm not seeing a link.
Psst, it's called 'guilt by association' where he attempts to discredit you argument, not on it's merits, but instead by linking it to something "bad" ':san_wink:

What is really killing me about this thread is that those who are usually the ones complaining about "Islamo-fascism," and the fact that theocracies like the Taliban used their religion like a blunt instrument and forced it on people whether they wanted it or not (which they did, the complaint is valid), are now promoting the very same practice in their own country.

Good God people! Can you not see the duplicity in your own statements?

So, let me get this straight:

It's okay for the government to force religion on people, as long as that religion happens to be Christianity.So a school wanting to add a ID disclaimer to its science class is comparable to some Islamo-facist thug in Afghanistan who would beat women with a stick if their veil fell off in public? I see.

Ya know, I'm not too young to remember when public schools used to allow students to pray before classes and put on Christmas pageants, ect. We should all be glad that we've moved away from such oppressive times and are allowed to bask in our new freedom- I never realized how terrible it used to be. :san_grin:

Gawain of Orkeny

12-22-2005, 06:47

Ya know, I'm not too old to remember when public schools used to allow students to pray before classes and put on Christmas pageants, ect. We should all be glad that we've moved away from such oppressive times and are allowed to bask in our new freedom- I never realized how terrible it used to be

Well Im that old and I remember it well. Can you believe they made me learn Hanakah songs and even the reason For hanakah? How disgusting. I was really offended. We had a prayer at the start of the day just like congress does. How is it they still get away with this? We even all said the pledge of allegance and no one complained about it stating one nation under god. You must be able to see how much taking these things out of school and replacing them with liberal ideas and federal control has improved our education system.

Big_John

12-22-2005, 07:01

well.. i've been "away" for awhile. but if there's one thing i learned from this thread, it's that i probably wasn't gone long enough.

i also learned that somebody has been working overtime on teh smilies!!!

:captain: :hippie: :ballchain: :spider: :2cents: :elephant: :flybye: :san_kiss:

friggen' sweeeet!

p.s. well done PA. congrats. :2thumbsup:

Redleg

12-22-2005, 07:06

Go read the ruling again, it will explain the legal aspects far better than I can. My take is that this IS govt. estalbishment of religion, plain and simple. Yes, it is a small thing, but a first step by a local school board. It is a constitutional issue and appropriate for Federal courts. If you don't nip it, then you will see more pushing of the envelope. This was an attempt to subvert existing rulings.

Oh I read the ruling - he explains the legal postion well - but again where is the constitutionality of the issue. The voters took care of the constitutional issue very well - they voted the bums out of office.

This is precisely why we have a constitution, to prevent state and local govts. from creating inequitable systems. The Civil Rights movement and Jim Crow Laws are the best modern example of how utterly corrupt state and local majority rule can be.

Again the legal measure ignores that the voters took care of the constitutional issue. I am still unsure why the issue made it to the Federal Courts after the election was completed.

The constitution provideds defense against the tyranny of the majority. That is why I find this States Rights/Local Rights approach so amusing. The real push is to use them to create an inequitable system. States rights are popular, because they are tools to be manipulated by local majorities everywhere to get a leg up on the minorities in the states (I mean that in the political sense, not racial, etc.)

Agreed - but again this does not pass the constitutionality question - the constitution does not stipulate freedom from religion.

If the school board had not been voted out, then by your reasoning it would have been acceptable. Wrong. It is not. It is an unreasonable endorsement of theology in place of science in a science class. Beyond that it is inequitable as it lifts one theology above others.

Not at all - if the board had not been voted out - then the courts might have needed to review the measure, if someone could show that the class was being forced onto those who did not want the course because of the religious nature behind that course.

The voters of the county solved the issue on their own. Why should the courts solve the simple matters when the voting public solved it for issue?

Edit: I could be use a strawman arguement here - next because certain history subjects contain religion those subjects will not be allowed taught in our public schools - same with philosophy classes. But its a reach.

Samurai Waki

12-22-2005, 11:11

I went to a Catholic Highschool, and they were adamently against the use of intelligent design being taught in Science Class. I remember some parents or something were upset at the school for not teaching it, and the school board told them something along the lines that "Intelligent Design is no more a valid explanation of science, than teaching everyone in theology that the bible is fact, and not debateable" Which is why I liked my Catholic School, their entire theory on sciences was "god works in mysterious ways, we evolve for a reason, we have DNA for a reason, and we can manipulate those things for a reason and that of course is to survive or in some cases destroy. God sets the stage, it's our job to move the pieces." Thats basically how he explained the theory of evolution, and genetics. My Theology teacher (also a Deacon) once explained to us "Religion is a matter of interpretation, its incredulous to think that modern christianity has rooted itself more with greek mythology, like everyone on earth is born with a fate, instead of everyone is born with a free will, as the bible dictates. Intelligent Design is like saying 'God controls everything for a reason' if that were true, I doubt Christianity would have survived as long as it has, during the Medieval Period and Renaissance, the Catholic Church Doctrine preached similarly to Intelligent Design, and we all know how well that turned out?" Things like this have always stuck to my core beliefs, I do believe that something is out there in the afterlife, but trying to interpret religious tomes as scientific fact is madness, and it follows a road of Death, and Domination. If the US were to adopt Intelligent Design as public school practrice, it would be one more stepping stone to turning the US into the next Iran, and the implications of that would be dire indeed.

Gawain of Orkeny

12-22-2005, 15:45

If the US were to adopt Intelligent Design as public school practrice, it would be one more stepping stone to turning the US into the next Iran, and the implications of that would be dire indeed.

Oh no not another one. So telling kids that god may have made them will turn the US into the next Iran. Are you serious? The rason this whole thing is ridiculous and would over turnredd is when you get down to it this judge has ruled that the mere inferrence that there is a god in school constitutes the establihment of a religion. Its totally off the wall. Again there was to be no class on ID nor was it to be drumbed into the little tikes heads. Four paragraphs saying there might be another explantaion at the start of class. Again what are you all afraid of?

English assassin

12-22-2005, 18:31

[Sigh]

Its all set out here far better than I could hope to put it Big G. Please read it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html

GoreBag

12-22-2005, 18:57

Stork theory! Haha, awesome.

Mongoose

12-22-2005, 19:18

ID should be taught, but not in a Biology or any other science class. It just isn't the right place for it.

Edit: As far as i know, ID is the belief that God created evoultion. It's not science, it's a religuos belief.

Also, just becuase other people follow it, dosen't mean that it's a Valid theory and thus should me mentioned.

Gawain of Orkeny

12-22-2005, 19:22

Your article like many people here makes the false claim that those who believe in ID oppose evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth. You also totally fail to address any of my points.

Mongoose

12-22-2005, 19:26

To be honest, i don't know what it means. Liberals tell me that it's "Creationism in a clown suit" And others tell me that it's the belief that God guided evolution. which side is lying?

Slyspy

12-22-2005, 19:53

It is an attempt by some Christians to square the theory of evolution with their faith. Darwin's theory, with its basis in scientific observation and analysis, should be taught in science class. Intelligent design, with its basis in faith, should be taught - if at all - in religious education class (or the equivalent). Unfortunately, as I understand it, the ID theory is not accepted doctrine for any major religion and so may have to fight for class time. Further more, while the explanation of ID requires a knowledge of the ToE (it is a response to it, by those who feel threatened) the teaching of ToE does not require reference to ID. It is rather depressing that this argument has flared up again. I thought that it was done and dusted over a century ago with "well, I'll be a monkey's uncle" being the main result.

I don't care whether it is a constitutional issue or not, nor do I have the depth of knowledge required, not being American. I suspect though that while federal funds go to the school then they run the risk of coming under federal juristriction. However as has been said the local people have already, and sensibly, voted out the errant board members so I would have thought that would have covered it in this instance.

PS

Although many proponents of ID claim, maybe rightfully, that ToE is taught as fact not theory I believe that their own arguments will not stop this. In fact, by tieing it to religious dogma maybe the reverse is true.

drone

12-22-2005, 19:53

First paragraph from the Guardian article posted by EA:
It sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? Such a modest proposal. Why not teach "both sides" and let the children decide for themselves? As President Bush said, "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes." At first hearing, everything about the phrase "both sides" warms the hearts of educators like ourselves.:san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh:

Sorry for the OT post, but that one was just too funny.

Soulforged

12-23-2005, 01:06

ID should be taught, but not in a Biology or any other science class. It just isn't the right place for it.As long as it's not teached as a science I couldn't care less...In fact I don't care because it's not in my country.:san_laugh:

I hate to say this...well not really, I enjoy saying this...this people are either lacking of faith or feeling that their faith was punched in their faces, so now they need to stand up and make crazy things to sustain an unprobable "theory" just for the sake of self conformity.

Red Harvest

12-23-2005, 09:36

Oh I read the ruling - he explains the legal postion well - but again where is the constitutionality of the issue. The voters took care of the constitutional issue very well - they voted the bums out of office.
Simply irrelevant, the action in question had already occurred. The issue had been raised and brought to the court's attention. The parties chose to continue it (or at least it appears so.)

Again the legal measure ignores that the voters took care of the constitutional issue. I am still unsure why the issue made it to the Federal Courts after the election was completed.
Same as above...and it was a constitutional issue.

Agreed - but again this does not pass the constitutionality question - the constitution does not stipulate freedom from religion.
Nor does it stipulate that one must have or endorse a religion. You can't slice this any other way than a set of officials attempting to use public entities to endorse their own religious views.

Not at all - if the board had not been voted out - then the courts might have needed to review the measure, if someone could show that the class was being forced onto those who did not want the course because of the religious nature behind that course.

The voters of the county solved the issue on their own. Why should the courts solve the simple matters when the voting public solved it for issue?
Because it wasn't going away...and because it was a constitutional arguement involving the use of federal funds.

As far as I know the actual policy was NOT changed until AFTER the ruling (I was a bit surprised when I saw that.) That might have been done intentionally to let the matter be resolved in the courts. That would mean it wasn't dead just because of the election--unless you expect the court to anticipate the vote.