"Intelligent Design" fails in some areas of the US

[AThousandLies]

Entire court ruling

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette (I got this from another forum, which credits the PPG).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intelligent design is creationism in disguise and has "utterly no place" in science classrooms, a federal judge ruled yesterday.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The decision by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones stops the Dover Area school board in nearby York County from requiring ninth-graders to hear a statement about intelligent design before they learn about Darwinian evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We had no idea how this would end up, but I'm glad we're here today in victory," said lead plaintiff Tammy Kitzmiller, a parent. "Eleven ordinary citizens stepped forward and made a difference."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The decision was seen as a setback for the intelligent design movement, which recently gained ground in Kansas, where the state school board voted to add intelligent design to its science program.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intelligent design proponents say some complex aspects of the natural world, yet unexplained by evolution, best are attributed to an unnamed and unseen intelligent designer -- usually believed to be God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Intelligent design had its day in court and it lost," said Witold Walczak, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Association of Pennsylvania, which, along with the Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton, represented the plaintiffs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The decision could have a ripple effect throughout the country as judges in other jurisdictions refer to Judge Jones' reasoning as they decide their own cases.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"This is a carefully reasoned, highly detailed decision that goes through all the issues that would be raised in any school district," said Richard B. Katskee, assistant legal director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "The judge was trying to write a decision that would be a guide to everyone else."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which represented the school district and describes its mission as defending the religious freedom of Christians, said: "What this really looks like is [a personal] attack on scientists who happen to believe in God."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

During six weeks of testimony this fall, board members argued that they wanted to improve science education and to promote critical thinking. Evidence, though, showed their true intent was to promote religious views, Judge Jones wrote.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Their asserted purposes are a sham," he wrote. "The district's purpose was to advance creationism, an inherently religious view, both by introducing it directly under the label ID and by disparaging the scientific theory of evolution so that creationism would gain credence by default."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In his decision, Judge Jones blasted school board members for lying in sworn depositions to conceal religious motives and to hide the fact that a church donated funds to place copies of "Of Pandas and People" -- an intelligent design textbook -- in the school library.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proponents of intelligent design say the judge went too far in his ruling when he disparaged their views, saying they are based on "flawed and illogical" arguments and not scientific research.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He should have considered only whether board members acted out of religious motives, said John West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Reaching well beyond the immediate legal questions before him, Judge Jones offered wide-ranging and sometimes angry comments denouncing intelligent design and praising Darwinian evolution," Dr. West said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The American Family Association of Pennsylvania, meanwhile, decried the decision as an attack on academic freedom and said students should be encouraged to keep open minds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Why the apparent fear to allow students to hear a simple statement saying that Darwinism is a theory and there are other theories out there?" said Diana Gramley, the association's president. "Pennsylvania students have just been hamstrung by a federal judge and the effort by the outgoing Dover Area school board to expand the students' knowledge has been destroyed."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Judge Jones expected such backlash.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The controversy prompted community debate and interest from more than 500 news media organizations as far away as Thailand and New Zealand. It also sparked the ouster of eight incumbent school board members in November's election. Elected instead were eight opponents of the intelligent design requirement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The new board agrees with the plaintiffs and is not expected to appeal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Board members required teachers -- or administrators, if teachers refused -- to read students a disclaimer before lessons about evolution. The disclaimer, which students could opt out of hearing, cautioned that evolution is not based in fact, mentioned intelligent design is an alternative theory, stipulated that teachers could not answer questions and directed students to "Of Pandas and People" for more information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Early editions of that book included many references to creationism. Months after a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling prevented the teaching of creationism in public schools, a new edition was released that replaced references to creationism with the term "intelligent design."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The case divided the small rural community in York County.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"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," Judge Jones wrote.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plaintiffs, their children and their supporters said they've been called unpatriotic atheists and faced scorn in the community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Taking a stand was a difficult thing to do and it is especially difficult when it has divided a community so much," said plaintiff Christy Rehm. "We're here because we care extremely about our community of Dover and because we care about education."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judge was apparantly appointed by Bush himself.

[HugATree]

Science doesn't support their drivel, so they go to the ignorant public; anything to get their fairytale taught.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Why the apparent fear to allow students to hear a simple statement saying that Darwinism is a theory and there are other theories out there?" said Diana Gramley, the association's president.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are NO other theories explaining genetic diversity. Its not fear science is fighting, its ignorance.

[____]

When ID can provide some kind of scientific background then and only then will I ever want it to be part of the science ciriculum anywhere.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It isn't exactly hard to understand - in science-based subjects you learn things which have scientifiic backing. If people want ID taught in schools (and I'll say it again)...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft an RE subject ciriculum and let students who want to learn about religion take it.

[Tigra00]

Science doesn't support their drivel, so they go to the ignorant public; anything to get their fairytale taught.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Why the apparent fear to allow students to hear a simple statement saying that Darwinism is a theory and there are other theories out there?" said Diana Gramley, the association's president.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are NO other theories explaining genetic diversity. Its not fear science is fighting, its ignorance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To answer that ladies question - Because there's no proof at all of said theory. At least for Darwinism, they have some sort of idea's...For Intelligent Design, it's all about some book that was written by King James' little scribes to keep people in line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If I had a kid, and Intelligent Design was being taught in SCIENCE...I'd homeschool him. If you want to teach your kid Intelligent Design (you can bet your butt nothing would be said about Darwinism either in this case..) then you can homeschool them or send them to a perfectly good Catholic/Christian school.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Keep it out of public school's. It has no place. It teaches children nothing even potentially factual, it just tells them bed-time stories.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm glad this decision was made. I don't want to go to science class and hear "Today we're learning about baby Jesus and God!"...I want to learn about cells and what'n....You know, things that exsist.

[Necromagus]

I thought a scientific theory should bee falsifiable, provide a mechanism and make predictions about future events. Obviously (Neo-)darwinism meets these criteria, can anyone give me an example of an ID-theory that meets them?

[weezcake]

ID has no scientific backing at all. I don't understand why people even want it taught in a science class. :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's just so much ignorance in the US these days.

[Tigra00]

ID has no scientific backing at all. I don't understand why people even want it taught in a science class. :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's just so much ignorance in the US these days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To spread the word of God and convert people to their religion for the eventual basis of everything - Money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ignorance indeed. And they have the audacity to say WE are being ignorant for not wanting any part of it.

[insane]

To spread the word of God and convert people to their religion for the eventual basis of everything - Money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know, things that exsist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hear hear! Keep these baseless insults coming, people!

[HugATree]

 

 

 

You know, things that exsist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hear hear! Keep these baseless insults coming, people!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can you show me where I said that?

[Astralinre]

 

 

 

 

You know, things that exsist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hear hear! Keep these baseless insults coming, people!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can you show me where I said that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe he just made a misquote; Tigra actually said that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe that all students, whether in private or public schools, should be opposed to the idea that the earth was created by a self-existant being. However, I agree that it does not belong in science class, but in an RE class, or something of the sort.

[Tigra00]

 

To spread the word of God and convert people to their religion for the eventual basis of everything - Money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know, things that exsist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hear hear! Keep these baseless insults coming, people!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where did I insult anyone? Nowhere...? Oh yea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was stating my opinion based on how things are. Christian Children's Fund, for example, takes $200,000 out of every $1,000,000 they get donated and keeps it to themselves. 20% is a bit much when you're trying to feed people who are starving to death, yes? I think so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANd the "things that exsist" comment was due to the fact that Darwinism at least has some backing, where as religion has no proof except a book. If I write a book that says Lepricaun's live on the sun and Chicken's are to be worshipped 5 times a day, are you going to do that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apparently you would...

[AThousandLies]

If I write a book that says Lepricaun's live on the sun and Chicken's are to be worshipped 5 times a day, are you going to do that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know I would!

[Tigra00]

 

If I write a book that says Lepricaun's live on the sun and Chicken's are to be worshipped 5 times a day, are you going to do that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know I would!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Worshipping Chicken's can be quite tasty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...I happen to worship thing's by throwing them in an Oven at 450 degree's for 5 hours and basting them lightly in their own juices...Sue me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and the Leprichaun's...They come over and eat too....I mean worship.

[Guest GhostRanger]

I'm a devout Christian who believes science and religion can easily coexist. You know my views on religion if you read the end of the 21 page religion post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But...this kind of thing irritates me. Two things need to be done:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Intelligent Design needs to be taught as a social science because that is what it is. The only people who believe in it are religious people because of their religions, so teach all types of religions in the World Civilization class that every one eventually takes (each religion as you cover each civilization, I had a teacher that did this amazingly - strong Christian and you would never had known it with how unbiased he was). When you learn about civilizations and their religions, you will learn that some people don't believe in evoltuon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) In the science class where its appropriate (Earth/Space/Biology most likely) teach all the different types of theories on how the earth began. Teach them all equally - tell which one scientists perfer - but teach them all as some thing no one really knows.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's how it should be done, because no one is exagerrating the truth if you teach it that way. Any other way and someone is bending the truth.

[Tigra00]

That's all fine and dandy GhostRanger, until you realize the seperation of church and state would then be shattered, and people will get pissy about their kid's having religious views forced upon them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know why it's so hard to understand..It's a very old law, the seperation of church and state is...Why do people all of a sudden find it odd that we're not teaching Christianity in schools? It's because we're not supposed to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously, if that barrier is broken, White Power groups are going to start wanting White Pride to be taught in history and [cabbage]..It's really the same thing...Not to say that christian's are nazi's, you know...But...Yea..Things like that need to be taught in a home environment, not in a school, because they're not a mainstream belief. Religion is rather mainstream, butthe serperation of church and state makes it so it cannot be taught. Thus why we learn about Darwinism...That, and it has backing to it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not that hard to grasp.

[Scruffy5389]

Take it easy, Tigra...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am in absolute agreement with this judge. I think ID is a religious theory that has no place in the science classroom.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In essence, my problem with ID is here:

 

 

 

Board members required teachers -- or administrators, if teachers refused -- to read students a disclaimer before lessons about evolution. The disclaimer, which students could opt out of hearing, cautioned that evolution is not based in fact, mentioned intelligent design is an alternative theory, stipulated that teachers could not answer questions and directed students to "Of Pandas and People" for more information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution is absolutely based in fact. It is based on observations we have made in the fossil record, observations in real time of bacteria that can evolve to resist antibiotics, etc. Like all science, it's a theory that isn't perfect, but is always being worked on. I repeat: The theory of evolution is absolutely based in fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's the difference. Darwinism is fact-based (or "evidence-based" if you prefer). Intelligent Design is faith-based. Faith serves a necessary purpose in society, but it should not be mandated in the classroom.

[Tigra00]

I am taking it easy. :P I was just explaining...Insane...What was his name? Whatever, he said I was insulting people, and I wasn't insulting anyone, let alone him.

[ice_ring]

Lol, that's nothing. My biology teacher decided that she didn't like the idea of evolution so she just skipped the chapter. :lol:

[Astralinre]

That's all fine and dandy GhostRanger, until you realize the seperation of church and state would then be shattered, and people will get pissy about their kid's having religious views forced upon them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strong words there. The separation would hardly be shattered, and views would hardly be forced upon children. If students have a class (even if the class is required) that exposes them to all of the mainstream religion and philosophis, as GhostRanger was talking about, then there would be no problem. Separation of Church and State would be maintained, as the government wouldn't be endorsing one particular religion. And religion wouldn't be forced upon the students; it would be offered to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know why it's so hard to understand..It's a very old law, the seperation of church and state is...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's never been a law, you know. More of a tradition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Things like that need to be taught in a home environment, not in a school, because they're not a mainstream belief.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree that the home is the best place to teach a child such things, but there's no harm at all in exposing them to such ideas at school.

[Guest GhostRanger]

That's all fine and dandy GhostRanger, until you realize the seperation of church and state would then be shattered, and people will get pissy about their kid's having religious views forced upon them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know why it's so hard to understand..It's a very old law, the seperation of church and state is...Why do people all of a sudden find it odd that we're not teaching Christianity in schools? It's because we're not supposed to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously, if that barrier is broken, White Power groups are going to start wanting White Pride to be taught in history and cabbage..It's really the same thing...Not to say that christian's are nazi's, you know...But...Yea..Things like that need to be taught in a home environment, not in a school, because they're not a mainstream belief. Religion is rather mainstream, butthe serperation of church and state makes it so it cannot be taught. Thus why we learn about Darwinism...That, and it has backing to it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not that hard to grasp.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, if you want to be historically accurate, seperation of church and state has never been in our constitution and or any law in the United States.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The first ammendment says that "congress shall make no law establishing religion," - the idea of seperation of church and state has never existed except in a couple of letters back and fourth debating the issue from our early forefathers. Teaching every religion equally and objectionally does not establish a religion - therefore it does not violate the constitution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And what you don't understand is that religion is part of culture. If we are expected to learn about culture, it is easier to understand motives, etc. if we know about their religions. Its the same reason we learn about the Greek gods - their religion depicts their cultures. That's why I said to teach it objectively in social science classes. It is not endorsing one or the other.

[Craven_Image]

My opinions on religion have been mostly good however I in know way believe in such a thing. Religion accounts for alot of charitable work and tradition which surrounds a religion, for example christmas in christian countrys creates a happy mood for everyone regardless of whether they believe in it or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution is based on fact and therefore is the most reasonable explanation for our origins.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religion would have a very good place in explaining the unexplainable in physics. For example religion could be used to explain what happened before the big bang what is the outcome of our universe and extra terrestrial life. However religion can only explain the unexplainable until it becomes explainable through science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because most of the leading religions today were forged in a time when little was known about the world, the origins of life were explained through religion because there was no proof otherwise, however now that they've been explained through evidence and fact people are still clinging onto these old views of origin even when the truth is still staring them in the face. The reason I see why people would pay so much ignorance to fact is because they've been taught the religion at a very young and impressionable age. Below the age of 5 the human mind is still at a very suseptable state and thus if an adult comes up to a child and tells them something is true and taught as if it is fact then that child will grow up to believe in such a thing regardless of how unproven it is.

[Pyro]

Of course religion should be taught in school. What is important is how it is taught. There is a massive different between teaching a child how the world was created and teaching a child how the Christians believe the world was created. There are a lot of people who fail to see the difference between these types of teaching, and these are the people who believe intelligent design is science. This is part of the reason that I would never consider becoming a teacher. I would never allow myself to teach someone that there is any reason whatsoever to believe in the supernatural, and hence I would be forcing atheism on students who may want no part of it. Unfortunately, there are quite a few less enlightened folks out there, and it wouldn't suprise me if we needed a revolutionary atheist movement one of these days. Freedom of faith is cool with me, but when your freedom reduces my feedom, I'll bite :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More power to every religious person out there who lets religion stay personal and doesn't try to force it on others.

[____]

More power to every religious person out there who lets religion stay personal and doesn't try to force it on others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And that's the way it should be.

[insane]

 

 

 

 

You know, things that exsist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hear hear! Keep these baseless insults coming, people!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can you show me where I said that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My apologies, I meant to quote tigra.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where did I insult anyone? Nowhere...? Oh yea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually you did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By saying "you know, things that exist", you were implying that Jesus does not exist - if I were to tell you in a sarcastic manner that what you base your entire life on does not exist, I'll bet you'd get offended.

[Lionheart_0]

 

 

 

Actually you did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By saying "you know, things that exist", you were implying that Jesus does not exist - if I were to tell you in a sarcastic manner that what you base your entire life on does not exist, I'll bet you'd get offended.

 

 

 

Actuly it shouldnt be offending, should just be ignorance. I dont think its common knowledge, but Jesus did exist, and was a real person, and as an Athiest, i even reconize this.(just dont belive he did what he did {you know the reincarnation and what not})

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think he is refering to god.