Darwin Wins again….Intelligent Design is not a Science.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled today that Intelligent Design should not be taught as a science in any of the Dover area schools. I decided to just quote from the Judges conclusion found here so that you can read his full explanation of why he ruled this way. It’s pretty interesting stuff, I bolded the fun parts. Be warned the entire document is 129 pages long.

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board

11 Comments so far

  1. Mary (unregistered) on December 20th, 2005 @ 12:53 pm

    Thus, the reason the world is going down the drain. People have lost their faith.


  2. Ian (unregistered) on December 20th, 2005 @ 1:18 pm

    Well actually what this means is that they are now following the constitution, and I wish the whole country would start reading that thing. We fought hard for it. You don’t have to read much of it to get to the part about the separation of Chuch and State thing. This isn’t about a loss of faith, just following the law of our land. As for the world going down the drain…no idea how this ruling will cause that. But just in case I brought my water wings to work with me. I better start building that Ark.


  3. Chris (unregistered) on December 20th, 2005 @ 9:03 pm

    I believe seperation of Church and State is being confused here. I believe that the seperation of Churh and State was meant to prevent religion from interfering with politics. Teaching science in public school is not politics. It’s learning. I personally believe that not teaching ID to students proves a disservice to them just as not teaching Evolution in religious schools proves a disservice to those children.

    Look at it this way, I would rather my kids be informed of all the theories and options availible and allow them to make their own decision on what is correct rather then be told this is how it is and there is no other options. Regardless of the fact that you can poke holes the size of the broken dykes in New Orleans in ID. I believe it should be taught as something that some people believe. And I don’t mean believe in a religious sense either I mean you can believe Darwin is correct or not, or you can believe in ID or not. Regardless of faith or the lack there of.


  4. ian (unregistered) on December 21st, 2005 @ 7:37 am

    A couple of things. I don’t think the original intent of separation of church and state was just in politics, they wanted church to not be an influence period, but it’s not possible for me to know what the heck they wanted, as none of us really can. But they have ruled time and time again that church doesn’t belong in government, and as such public schools are government and tax dollar funded.
    Second, this isn’t about not teaching ID, it’s about not teaching it in Biology class, and have it mandated that it be taught alongside Evolution. As the judged ruled, and as I agree, ID is not a science, and as a result it shouldn’t be taught as one. I am in favor of learning about all religions, and the different views. It’s important historically, as it explains why so much of the world is the way it is now. So for my kids I would love for them to have all sides so they are better prepared to deal with debate, but ID should be taught in religion class as it’s not a science.


  5. mac (unregistered) on December 21st, 2005 @ 8:25 am

    Teaching ID in science class seems crazy – there’s no hard scientific evidence to suggest ID actually exists, as opposed to the mountains of scientific evidence that suggests evolution occured. ID requires us to take a leap of faith, hence it is not science. And it shouldn’t be taught as such.

    The judge made a fair ruling based on his understanding of the Constitution. Considering the judge in this case is a Bush appointee, I think it’s refreshing to see someone associated with the GOP who cares about upholding the Constitution.


  6. Chris (unregistered) on December 21st, 2005 @ 10:34 am

    Please note that I am not a bible thumper, nor am I a science hater. I am just playing devil’s advocate and trying to spur some solid debate. Nothing strikes up a good debate like pseudo-science.

    My understanding, from the numerous history classes I have taken (and granted we are just taking historians word on what happened) but the founding fathers wanted the seperation of church and state for two reasons. They didn’t want the church to influence the government (my use of the word politics was shortsighted but I meant government), as it was in England, on the reverse side of that they also didn’t want the government to influence people’s choice in religion, as it did in England.

    To “suggest” that evolution is correct over ID is shortsighted. Despite the “mountains of scientific evidence” it’s still just that a suggestion, or a theory. ID is just that a theory. No one can say with scientific certainty exactly how we came to be as nobody was there. To say that because ID requires you to take leap of faith it should be discounted is equally shortsighted as to say that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is hogwash. Both are just that theories that have yet to be proven as fact. Which is why 200+ years after the fact we are still debating evolution. I’m not saying that ID should be taught as fact but then again I don’t think that evolution should be taught as fact either.

    To say that because ID requires you to take a leap of faith and therefore is not science is incredulous. Are we now as people to not believe in anything that doesn’t have something to back it up? Where would we be as a society if that were our way of thinking? I’ll tell you, we would still believe the earth is flat, we would think that we were the center of the universe and we would certainly not think that we had decended from apes. Early discoveries were all based on some sort of faith.

    To relegate ID to a religion class eliminates it from being taught in public schools. Remember they don’t teach religion there. Seperation of church and state and all that jazz. By not teaching it as a science, which strong arguments can be made that it isn’t (and rightly so), we are eliminating it from being taught at all. Putting students at a disadvantage by not gaining all the knowledge they can, so they can make their own decisions and maybe one day prove that one of those two theories is correct.


  7. Ian (unregistered) on December 21st, 2005 @ 11:39 am

    Debate is always welcome, I rarely take offense unless you make a comment about my mother :)

    In my school of thought, ID and Evolution aren’t even in the same ballpark. ID is Pseudoscience, it’s really just creationism without the mention of “God”

    With evolution they are actually able to show examples of things evolving. There is a lot of evidence of Evolution, contrary to what the ID folks might tell you. While Creationism/ID will never be able to show any proof. Since science is rooted in proof, ID will always lose in this debate.

    Having religion in public schools is having religion in government. Public is Government. Tax dollars, free education, supplemented by the Government. I think it’s valid. If you want your kids to learn religion (I forgot they don’t teach it at all) then you send them to a school that does, or they are taught on the weekends. As a parent you also have this wonderful, albeit scary, ability to teach them yourself. I don’t mean home-schooling, but if they have a question feel free to look it up, or maybe a lesson a week. Same with TV, if you don’t like it turn it off, if your kids wants to know more; teach em. Or like me, I took classes in college on eastern religions to understand more.

    I don’t think any kid is disadvantaged by not being taught pseudoscience, while the opposite is quite true. As the judge ruled, ID is not science and should not be taught in science class. I appreciate the devils advocate approach, but in this case I’d say it’s an impossible one to win. Science should be taught in Science class. Religion doesn’t belong in publicly funded schools, as it doesn’t belong in government…(don’t get me started on our “supreme being” Mr Bush).

    Also, last point, if I remember correctly, as a kid I questioned everything. I questioned the teachers on why the heck do we have to learn math. All of my friends questioned authority on one or more occasion. I am quite certain these kids are not at a loss. If they wanted to ask about it, or learn about it, they can and I am sure they do.


  8. ian (unregistered) on December 21st, 2005 @ 11:53 am

    I have the best idea yet. Lets add an elective class for seniors titled “Pseudoscience” They could teach ID, Scientology, information about chiropracticors, and that guy late at night that talks to dead people. Here is a link I found that could be the basis for the curriculum.

    http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html

    and another link talking about Evolution that is a good read and touches on what the discussion so far has covered.

    http://www.evolutionhappens.net/


  9. Ian (unregistered) on December 21st, 2005 @ 2:16 pm

    Well my idea somehow got to the board and they are going to use it!! Well ok, not quite my idea, and I doubt they got it from me, but on cnn I just read that “The new school board president, Bernadette Reinking, said the board wants to place intelligent design in an elective social studies class instead.”

    Good idea, but then does that become an issue with the Constitution? Not a lawyer here, but I feel okay with the fact that it’s not required…


  10. Diamonddille (unregistered) on December 22nd, 2005 @ 1:06 am

    Maybe both viewpoints are correct.

    There is the physical universe, which is what Science masters, Then there is the Spiritual Universe,from which we the Concious being is from.

    Religions makes us aware of ourselves as Spiritual Beings. Until Scientology came along they had no technology to get the Beings Past life memories back. With that Technology Millions can attest to the Fact that Past lifes is very much a reality.Yes you only live one life as a Spiritual being, but you have many bodies, which you have memories of each lifetime. Perhaps one can fix his mind and gain the ability to remember his own and know what and how it really came down on the spiritual Side, and How the Being aquired a Genetic Enity, down the track. You have memory of it… Scientology is the technology that gives you the access to it, believe it or not. The truth still has impact. The real truth will set you FREE. It don’t have to be next life time either…

    On a one to one basis, individuals gaining back there own memories, tend to realize the same story as they gain the ability to go back farther and farther in there own memory. The real truth will be proved to your self by an incredible increase in personal perception and abilities.

    With out an incredible ability boost you can be sure your not on the pathway to the real truth.
    The truth of you frees you from the physical level, giving you back your native abilities as a Spiritual being, Which like God, who is also a spiritual being, are quite incredible.

    Unfortunately it takes awareness to see awareness. If your down at the level of a wino , your only going to comunicate with another wino, that reality is the only thing you will agree with, which is not at all the real truth. Man in general has a scertain agreement level, it is very materialistic, and very much agreed upon. Man needs to grow up.That Concept continues to go up to God and higher, as there is no top on ability and perception. On that route you will find out the real truths. That will manifest in higher and higher abilities. Understanding that concept, you will understand why Scientologists think different.

    Yes they are wierd to normal man. But if you knew you were really a spirit with infinite abilities, who wants to stay at Man’s agreement level? It really is worth checking out. If you don’t have new concepts, you can be assured your not growing… Your understanding level has to go up too really understand new concepts, other wise they are just wierd…

    Scientology is not something you have to believe, It is something you have to experience, That is how real knowledge comes about. Fixed data and believes are not real knowledge, it produces no abilities. To fully duplicate Christ would make you Christ-like. That should tell you the workability of todays modern Belief systems. Are they producing Christ like beings? You tell by there fruits…

    That is what its all about. One must be able to duplicate the truth. Man as Man cannot duplicate, as the bodies eyes cannot see Truth, so one has to rise above that level, to find out who he really is and what it really is all about. Remember when you do you will aquire spiritual abilities, which will give you the abilities to master the Physical level. That is what it is all about. Then you will understand the Spiritual Aspect and how it really came down.

    When you can walk on water or raise the dead, Then you have duplicated truth. You will have duplicated Christ. Man needs The tools to fix the Mind God gave you, then one will truly grow.
    Use that as a guide to tell if your really growing, then you will know if your getting real knowledge or not. Find out who you really Are…


  11. mac (unregistered) on December 22nd, 2005 @ 9:57 am

    If we’re going to consider scientific theories that have scientific evidence to back them up and unscientific theories that have no evidence to back them as the same thing and give them both equal footing in the science classroom, we also have to teach other alternate theories. The alternate to the theory of gravity is Intelligent Falling. The alternate to Einstein’s theory of relativity is Intelligent Motion. Perhaps we can also teach the alternate theory that the Holocaust really didn’t happen, too.



Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.