Intelligent Design smacked down in Dover PA

[Darth Wong]

The news just in: the local school boards' effort to force science teachers to teach "intelligent design" in science class has been struck down by a federal judge.

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

Excerpts:

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy," Jones wrote. "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."

Sums up the whole thing in a nutshell. If there's a non-religious person out there fighting for "intelligent design", I have yet to meet him. As a friend of mine likes to say, "intelligent design is creationism in a clown suit." A completely dishonest fabrication designed to sneak in creationism by calling it a science and pretending that it has nothing to do with religion.

PS. I posted this in the Political Mudpit rather than the science-related forum because "intelligent design" has always been a political movement, not a scientific one. It claims to be a scientific movement, but that's quite frankly a lie; ID has never gained any traction whatsoever among biologists, and for good reason: it is not science. Science explains HOW THINGS WORK; it doesn't just say "ummm, I dunno how it works but God did it."

[Ó Cathasaigh]

A. hooray, Political Correctness rears it's ugly head again! I'm happy we can accomidate those who don't share our beleifs.
B. Einstien put it rather well, "Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind"

[Darth Wong]

A. hooray, Political Correctness rears it's ugly head again! I'm happy we can accomidate those who don't share our beleifs.
B. Einstien put it rather well, "Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind"

I love the way you totally ignore the points I made about what is and isn't valid science. Do you think history should be taught in math class? Why do you think religion should be taught in science class?

PS. You're totally abusing Einstein's quote. He was just saying that you can't live your life by science alone, not that science should actually incorporate religion.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

I love the way you totally ignore the points I made about what is and isn't valid science. Do you think history should be taught in math class? Why do you think religion should be taught in science class?

Why not, explaining the historical significance of the Pathagorean therom might improve my understanding of it. Should religion be taught in science class? An interesting question. Seeing of how science has not disproven the basis of relgion, why not. Until you can disprove it, it remains a valid theory.

PS. You're totally abusing Einstein's quote. He was just saying that you can't live your life by science alone, not that science should actually incorporate religion.

I think Einstein himself is the only one who has the right to say who is "abusing" his quotes.

[Darth Wong]

Why not, explaining the historical significance of the Pathagorean therom might improve my understanding of it. Should religion be taught in science class? An interesting question.

But you wouldn't teach mathematically false theories in math class just because they have some historical merit. Once again, you're missing the point.

Seeing of how science has not disproven the basis of relgion, why not. Until you can disprove it, it remains a valid theory.

Wrong. Religion is not and has never been a valid scientific theory. Scientific theories have numerous requirements which I will bet you are incapable of listing here, because you obviously don't know what they are.

I think Einstein himself is the only one who has the right to say who is "abusing" his quotes.

Since Einstein also said "I knew that the stories of the Bible could not be true", I think that speaks for itself.

[danzig]

A. hooray, Political Correctness rears it's ugly head again! I'm happy we can accomidate those who don't share our beleifs.
B. Einstien put it rather well, "Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind"

Shrug it doesnt belong in biology, teach it as a philosophy nothing wrong with the ruling imo other then maybe the tone of the Judge which was a bit harsh. ID from day 1 should have been fashioned as philosophical theory if its backers truly wanted to get it included in class rooms. Atleast there it could be debated and argued amoung students and not lectured to as a science class would be.

[Templedog]

separation of church and state. That's unpatriotic Hicks, if you dont like it.....GET OUT

[imb39]

Whilst I can understand the rationale behind the Dover P.A. boards decision - who sets the exams? Here, in Britain (which is much smaller, I grant you) we have 'exam boards' which sets exams based upon the syllabus. The idea of a local board changing the syllabus to match its own conceptions (I won't use the phrase misconceptions because that is irrellivent) would be laughed at here...

Exam boards here are not necessarily without controversy but the syllabi (?) set for every subject has no input (well very little input) from laymen (shall we say).

Even though much of science is theory (even laws are only as valid as the last experiment!), if they are generally accepted by the vast majority of scientists then, tbh, laymen should either directly disprove it or stay out of the topic. It reminds me of the situation with Gallileo. The Catholic Church only accept his theories in the 19th Century. And the Pope is infallible...

tbh, the Bible should be left at home when considering scientific fact. However, it has a place in the ethics of how science is used. Some people seem to get this bit confused.

[danzig]

Whilst I can understand the rationale behind the Dover P.A. boards decision - who sets the exams? Here, in Britain (which is much smaller, I grant you) we have 'exam boards' which sets exams based upon the syllabus. The idea of a local board changing the syllabus to match its own conceptions (I won't use the phrase misconceptions because that is irrellivent) would be laughed at here...

Exam boards here are not necessarily without controversy but the syllabi (?) set for every subject has no input (well very little input) from laymen (shall we say).

Its down side of public school education system in the US where school boards generally wield more power then they should in deciding what is taught in their district. Here in NYC the then mayor Rudy Giuliani engaged in a long draw out fight to bring control under the mayor's office rather then a bunch of morons sitting on the board, the result has been a slow but noticable increase in quality of education here in NYC under our current mayor that continues to get better and better. The system however as it works in alot of the country is the very reason that ID even becomes an issue, want ID taught? Figure out how to pack the board. Want same sex marriage taught in schools? Pack the board. Then we wonder why our kids have lower reading and math scores because we are wasting time on this nonsense crap.

[Rush Limbaugh]

The thing is they didnt want ID taught as I understand but just mentioned. ID is not at odds with biology. Telling people there are other explantions is a goodthing. I would bet most americans believe in ID.

[Templedog]

The thing is they didnt want ID taught as I understand but just mentioned. ID is not at odds with biology. Telling people there are other explantions is a goodthing. I would bet most americans believe in ID.

That is the problem...the believe word. Can't help it that most americans are dumb and just believe in fantasy. Scientologists want the kids to know about the aliens coming to earth....that would be next.

[Rush Limbaugh]

Looks like your wrong Kanaric . This is all they wanted

Last fall the Dover school board voted to require teachers to read a four-paragraph statement that Darwin's theory of evolution is only one theory "not fact." It does not specifically mention God, instead encouraging students to "keep an open mind" about the origin of life and referring them to the theory called intelligent design. It says life is so complex, a higher power must have created us. Dover biology teachers refused to read the statement. "If we had read the statement it would have given Intelligent design legitimacy as a scientific theory," said science teacher Jennifer Miller.

They did not want ID "taught" as fact but wanted it mentioned as a reasonable alternative.

There was never even one class that would be on ID just a paragraph.

[RZZZA]

If most Americans believe in ID, then were are TRULY introuble. Only in America can a religous wetdream theory be taught in public schools...and we are so close to that actually happening. Its already happened in some bible belt public schools. I fear for those children...

God has no place in politics, morality, economics or science. Maybe a little in morality...but if so, keep it to yourself. Morality and God don't HAVE to interconnect, people just choose for it to be that way.

If my HS started teaching religion, it would be an ever bigger incentive for me to never go. I'd have to ask questions like "If God is all powerful, can he create an egg that he himself could not break?" and "Why do Americans picture Jesus as a white longhaired hippie?". People like me would never give an ID teacher a break, every class period would turn into a debate on the legitamcy of having ID taught in school, of the existence of "God", and I personally would be given detention many times as a result. I'm the kinda guy who pushes the threshold to see how far I can get away with something, and I know many kids, some former friends, who would do the exact same thing. We'd say something thatsomeone else would find insulting, then we'd have to call that person a bible thumping religious fanatic, then they'd call us heathen illmannered atheists....then we'd have to argue on the definition of atheism...ugh, what a headache.

[MaximiIian]

The thing is they didnt want ID taught as I understand but just mentioned. ID is not at odds with biology. Telling people there are other explantions is a goodthing. I would bet most americans believe in ID.

Hey, when the international scientific community changes it's mind and switches from evolution to ID, then maybe biology can teach ID, but until then, science classes will teach science, not myth.

[Sidus Preclarum]

ID is not at odds with biology.

But has nothing to do in a biology class either.

[Kanaric]

A. hooray, Political Correctness rears it's ugly head again! I'm happy we can accomidate those who don't share our beleifs.
B. Einstien put it rather well, "Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind"

Ya, and the constitution says separation between church and state, and majority rule.... so go figure. Are you saying your against both?

edit: This has nothing to do with political correctness, but everything with what I said above. Its like saying banning segregation was too PC (which people of that time would of thought). Its unconstitutional, and the majority even agrees if your even still against what they did then you would likely support a dictatorship and theocratical government. You would make a great iranian citizen.

[Sétanta]

@#$! Political Correctness

[Fenris]

@#$! Political Correctness

Abused political correctness would have if the decision was taken the other way. I mean, if you teach intelligent design in a christian perspective, you should also teach buddhist view on the creation of the world? And Rael's view too, why not? I have been taught all these but not in biology for bob's sake! In a course which was about religions, not science.

[Kanaric]

The thing is they didnt want ID taught as I understand but just mentioned. ID is not at odds with biology. Telling people there are other explantions is a goodthing. I would bet most americans believe in ID.

IT would be good if it were like that. However they ONLY want ID to be taught.

If they really did want ALL explanations and fought for all explanations that would be ok. That would include the teaching of all other religions, and several SCIENTIFIC theories. That would work perfectly fine, however that is not what they do.

[Rush Limbaugh]

IT would be good if it were like that. However they ONLY want ID to be taught.

If they really did want ALL explanations and fought for all explanations that would be ok. That would include the teaching of all other religions, and several SCIENTIFIC theories. That would work perfectly fine, however that is not what they do.

Do you have proof of this? If thats the case then I have to agree with you.