NationStates Jolt Archive

Federal courts in Harrisburg has ruled that the Dover Area School Board violated the Constitution when it required its biology curriculum to include "intelligent design."

It's a great day for those of us who care about silly little things like scientific integrity.

Scientists - 1 Religious right - 0


(you guys thought I was a typical far righter, huh? :p )

( I did get the news from Fox though;) )

I started a thread on this first! Naaay nayy NA! :D

I started a thread on this first! Naaay nayy NA! :D

*sticks tongue out and runs away crying*

Just out of curiosity, what part of the Constitution was violated?

Just out of curiosity, what part of the Constitution was violated?

That would be the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The 14th Amendment has it that the Bill of Rights applies to the States, so States cannot violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Not all religions believe in Intelligent Design, hence, forcing the teaching of Intelligent Design is having a public school establish one particular religion being taught.

So I take it part of the ruling, then, is specifying that Intelligent Design not only is not science, but that it is descriptively "religious"?

Federal courts in Harrisburg has ruled that the Dover Area School Board violated the Constitution when it required its biology curriculum to include "intelligent design."

It's a great day for those of us who care about silly little things like scientific integrity.


It is never a great day when governmental employees mandate educational curriculum. The surest way to lose the truth is let a lawyer get involved.

It is never a great day when governmental employees mandate educational curriculum. The surest way to lose the truth is let a lawyer get involved.
Well, I don't know about you, but I don't want someone to suddenly get up and teach astrology as science, or tell my children that Xenu and the Thetans really existed.

So I take it part of the ruling, then, is specifying that Intelligent Design not only is not science, but that it is descriptively "religious"?

Damn well better be. I'll have to scare up a link to the actual decision, but ID is in no way, shape, or form Science.

Well, I don't know about you, but I don't want someone to suddenly get up and teach astrology as science, or tell my children that Xenu and the Thetans really existed.
Amen to that.

(Thought you said "Xena" for a minute.) ;)

So I take it part of the ruling, then, is specifying that Intelligent Design not only is not science, but that it is descriptively "religious"?

That is inherently what it is. Intelligent Design cannot be scientific, because it relies on the supernatural, a higher being. The supernatural cannot be tested with the Scientific Method, the cornerstone of science, and thus is not scientific. Additionally, as much as the pro ID folks would have you believe that ID does not really have a specific designer in mind, those same people are all Christians, thus the Christian God.
Seriously, we allow this type of shit into science classrooms as legitimate science, and we become even more of a laughing stock in the entire educated world.

It is never a great day when governmental employees mandate educational curriculum. The surest way to lose the truth is let a lawyer get involved.
Truth? There's no room for truth in a science classroom--there's only room for observable fact. If you want to talk about truth, go to a philosophy class.

Damn well better be. I'll have to scare up a link to the actual decision, but ID is in no way, shape, or form Science.
I would appreciate someone locating it. I don't trust in my own web abilities to find such.

I would appreciate someone locating it. I don't trust in my own web abilities to find such.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aHhAnvL4XhjU&refer=us

In his opinion, Jones said the key issue is ``whether Intelligent Design is science,'' and said, ``we have concluded that it is not.''

Jones said the concept of Intelligent Design, ``cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.''

That is inherently what it is...
Well, I'm not so much interested in what is inherent in the decision as in what the decision actually was. ;)

Well, I don't know about you, but I don't want someone to suddenly get up and teach astrology as science, or tell my children that Xenu and the Thetans really existed.

Funny though how things like that were never a problem until the government hijacked the educational system in the mid 60's. As I recall local school boards and PTA's actually worked together weeding out nutballs, instead of making sure that nutballs ruled the system.

This is the deciscion.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/051220_kitzmiller_342.pdf

I've been following it here - they've got links to all the trial transcripts as well : http://www.pandasthumb.org/

Elicere

Well, I'm not so much interested in what is inherent in the decision as in what the decision actually was. ;)

Kimchi posted it for ya.

I'll take it a bit further and include this bit:

To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

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

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. 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 breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. 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.

Taken from:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/051220_kitzmiller_342.pdf

Amen to that.

(Thought you said "Xena" for a minute.) ;)
( Xena can teach me anything she wants ... any time! Woo hoo! ) :D

This is the deciscion.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/051220_kitzmiller_342.pdf

I've been following it here - they've got links to all the trial transcripts as well : http://www.pandasthumb.org/

Elicere
Awesome. Thanks to you and Kimchi.

"As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."
[ cheers wildly ] Yayyy!

I knew the ID people were in trouble when I discovered that my old Philisophy professor, Dr. Barbara Forrest, was testifying for the other side. She was one of the toughest professors I ever had, and one of the most intellectually challenging as well. I got one A and one B in the two classes I took with her, and I earned every point of both of them. Most students hated having her class, because she was a ball-buster--I loved it.

Funny though how things like that were never a problem until the government hijacked the educational system in the mid 60's. As I recall local school boards and PTA's actually worked together weeding out nutballs, instead of making sure that nutballs ruled the system.

Hmmm Never heard of the Scopes Monkey trial?

Creationism is young but the fight over evolution is much older.

Heck ID been around for a little while. Started in 89......

I knew the ID people were in trouble when I discovered that my old Philisophy professor, Dr. Barbara Forrest, was testifying for the other side. She was one of the toughest professors I ever had, and one of the most intellectually challenging as well. I got one A and one B in the two classes I took with her, and I earned every point of both of them. Most students hated having her class, because she was a ball-buster--I loved it.

:D Didn't know her but I recognised a few others and thought the same thing......

Funny though how things like that were never a problem until the government hijacked the educational system in the mid 60's. As I recall local school boards and PTA's actually worked together weeding out nutballs, instead of making sure that nutballs ruled the system.

we obviously inhabit different planets. on mine, you see, there was all sorts of crazy bullshit going on in USian public schools back then - outright religion in the science classes, punishments for people who didn't join in the teacher-led prayers, black kids not allowed to go to the same schools as white kids, etc.

Federal courts in Harrisburg has ruled that the Dover Area School Board violated the Constitution when it required its biology curriculum to include "intelligent design."

It's a great day for those of us who care about silly little things like scientific integrity.

Scientists - 1 Religious right - 0


(you guys thought I was a typical far righter, huh? :p )

( I did get the news from Fox though;) )

One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind...

...and one big-arsed ulcer for Pat Roberts.

we obviously inhabit different planets. on mine, you see, there was all sorts of crazy bullshit going on in USian public schools back then - outright religion in the science classes, punishments for people who didn't join in the teacher-led prayers, black kids not allowed to go to the same schools as white kids, etc.

Yup. The American public school system has had issue spots for awhile. They are just a tad more organized these days.....

we obviously inhabit different planets. on mine, you see, there was all sorts of crazy bullshit going on in USian public schools back then - outright religion in the science classes, punishments for people who didn't join in the teacher-led prayers, black kids not allowed to go to the same schools as white kids, etc.
Hell, I'm only thirty-seven, and I remember the teacher leading the class in prayer before going to lunch in elementary school. This was well after the Supreme Court had ruled that such a thing was not allowable, but that didn't stop it from happening. Toss in that I wasn't the same kind of Christian as the rest of the kids in school, and it made for some pretty uncomfortable situations.

Funny though how things like that were never a problem until the government hijacked the educational system in the mid 60's. As I recall local school boards and PTA's actually worked together weeding out nutballs, instead of making sure that nutballs ruled the system.

The flaw in your assertion is that they did weed out the 'nutballs'. All of the people who voted to sully the science classrooms that have come up for reelection have been replaced (8 of the 9 board members). All right there in the article. The system appears to work.

The second flaw in your assertion is that suggestion that it's not possible for a particular area or state (Kansas, I'm talking to you) can't be majoritively 'nutballs' and thus it would impossible to weed out the nutballs, as you put it, because they have the power of majority. Rulings like this help to protect the minority from tyranny of the majority.

So I take it part of the ruling, then, is specifying that Intelligent Design not only is not science, but that it is descriptively "religious"?

Except, if you had read the actual ruling you would have run across this...

Several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs.

Hell, I'm only thirty-seven, and I remember the teacher leading the class in prayer before going to lunch in elementary school. This was well after the Supreme Court had ruled that such a thing was not allowable, but that didn't stop it from happening. Toss in that I wasn't the same kind of Christian as the rest of the kids in school, and it made for some pretty uncomfortable situations.

We still have the problem in England. Prayers and hymns and whatnot in assemblies. Ironically the recent influx of muslims and Sikhs means that schools now either avoid religion or have to teach them all, rather than just teaching creationism as fact like when I was at school.

Although I oppose teaching ID in science classes (or at all) in many ways it could be a good thing. As i mentioned, young children in this country are taught creationism as fact, from about 5 years old. So when they start learning about science and realise what they were taught wasnt true, they learn to be more skeptical and critical. Which could explain why we have more or less abandoned religion here.

If we dont teach it to begin with, then rather than stopping believing it when science shows them the truth, kids might start believing it when science cant tell them everything.

How can we appreciate the truth without the lies?

Yay. Fuck ID. Thats one of the worst things religion has come p with in a few thousand years. Really gets my blood boiling...Oh well, at least it keeps me warm at night.