Court Ruling: Intelligent Design Not Science

[Hurin_Rules]

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]

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

[Hurin_Rules]

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]

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]

Finally, some sense has returned to Pennsylvania schools!

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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]

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.

[Red Harvest]

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]

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]

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.

[Geoffrey S]

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]

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.

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]

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

Exactly.

[Rodion Romanovich]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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.

LINK

[Tribesman]

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 ?

[Kralizec]

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

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

From one of the more suspiciously sounding sites 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]

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 ?

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]

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)

[Goofball]

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]

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]

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

[Hurin_Rules]

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...iography&hl=en

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...Jones%22&hl=en

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

[Kralizec]

Oooh, sweet, delicious irony! *slurp*

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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]

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]

Your right I was looking at the Dover case.

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.