Court Ruling: Intelligent Design Not Science

**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

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 12-21-2005, 00:56

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** · 12-21-2005, 01:12

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 ?

**Hurin_Rules** · 12-21-2005, 01:18

Originally Posted by 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 ?

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)

**Kralizec** · 12-21-2005, 01:18

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

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.

**Red Harvest** · 12-21-2005, 02:26

Originally Posted by 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.

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.