Intelligent Design defeated in court

E

Eon

New Member
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4545822.stm

And the Creationist wagon loses another wheel in court today, as a Judge banned any further attempts to introduce Intelligent Design to the school science curriculum.

The summing up goes on for awhile, but to give you a precis he also stated that Intelligent Design was not science and cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

He went on to blast school board members of disguising their true motives for introducing the ID policy, saying that he found that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom.

Beautiful. Justice has been done - because whatever the truth of the matter, all of the above points are right.
 
Now, my sincere question is this..... Did they find that religion was being pushed because they were afraid of it or did they use it as an excuse to keep other theories (prefered word Truth when refering to creation) out of the class room?
 
Genesis1315 said:
Now, my sincere question is this..... Did they find that religion was being pushed because they were afraid of it or did they use it as an excuse to keep other theories (prefered word Truth when refering to creation) out of the class room?
Click to expand...

Neither.

The Judge found that the IDers REPEATEDLY LIED (how Christian of them, and under oath too) when they said ID didn't have a basis in Creationism.

Someone better start praying to the Intelligent Designer that perjury charges aren't filed against them.

Don't twist the reasons the IDers lost. They lost because Intelligent Design has no basis in Science and has no right being taught AS PART of the science curriculum. That's ALL this was about. ID can STILL be taught in schools, just not as Science, which it is not.

Here's a link to the 139 page court ruling: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
 
Not gonna beat a dead horse:)

We've been over this one enough already.

When they find one small scrap of scientific evidence for macro evolution maybe we'll reopen the topic.
 
I think it was entirely because:

1. It was religion being introduced to science class under false pretences.
2. It was devoid of any shred of scientific value.

Whatever you want to claim as Truth the fact is that in Science class you teach only that which has a foundation in the scientific method. In Philosophy class you can teach as much ID as you think good.

The only reason that this is still an issue is the confusion that the layman often has between a scientific Theory and the common usage of the word.
 
Just because with everything that has gone on the past month...I am drawing a complete blank....

Was it decided that Evolution has any shred of scientific value? (here on the forums)

Gen
 
Didasko said:
Not gonna beat a dead horse:)

We've been over this one enough already.

When they find one small scrap of scientific evidence for macro evolution maybe we'll reopen the topic.
Click to expand...

You're not beating a dead horse, you're beating a dead strawman.

This wasn't the Scopes Monkey Trial, evolution wasn't on trial here.

Intelligent Design was.
 
Genesis1315 said:
Just because with everything that has gone on the past month...I am drawing a complete blank....

Was it decided that Evolution has any shred of scientific value? (here on the forums)

Gen
Click to expand...

Because Evolution can be verified/falsified by the scientific method.

ID/Creationism cannot.
 
Genesis1315 said:
How?
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume you're not being sarcastic.

Before I can answer that, we need to define what the scientific method is. It can be defined as the "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses".

Using that definition, we can state that the Theory of Evolution can be subjected to the scientific method. Of prime import is the ability to collect data through observation and experimentation.

If/when you claim that Evolution has no scientific value, what method are you using to come to that conclusion?

Because according to the scientific method it does have scientific value.

The ruling against ID has proven that ID does not have any redeeming scientific value. Why? Because it is inseparable from Creationism which cannot be observed, verified or experimented upon.
 
ChickenSoup said:
Achem? How can it be observed, tested, and recorded? :confused:
Click to expand...

How about observing, testing and recording fossil records?

Read On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection for detailed examples of the above.

Honestly, was this a serious question? Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?
 
Dark Virtue said:
You're not beating a dead horse, you're beating a dead strawman.

This wasn't the Scopes Monkey Trial, evolution wasn't on trial here.

Intelligent Design was.
Click to expand...

lol

Most assuredly beating a dead horse. Whether your talking evolution or ID we've said all that needs saying in prior threads (in my opinion of course).
 
I found this article on AP and thought it might be helpful to the discussion:

Excerpts from the Frequently Asked Questions section of "Evolution and Creationism: A Guide for Museum Docents," prepared for training docents and staff members at the Museum of the Earth in Ithaca, N.Y.:

WHAT IS EVOLUTION? Organic evolution is the idea that all organisms are connected by genealogy and have changed through time.

HOW DOES EVOLUTION HAPPEN? Evolution is probably driven by several processes, the most important of which is natural selection. Natural selection is a process in which some individuals survive and reproduce better than others because they have inherited characteristics that help them do so.

IS EVOLUTION `JUST A THEORY'? A "theory" in science is a structure of related ideas that explains one or more natural phenomena and is supported by observations from the natural world; it is not something less than a "fact." Theories actually occupy the highest, not the lowest, rank among scientific ideas.

HOW DO YOU KNOW EVOLUTION OCCURRED? By examining fossils and comparing them to organisms alive today.

DOESN'T THE COMPLEXITY/DESIGN OF NATURE IMPLY AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER? Science deals only with the material causes of material phenomena. Nothing we can observe in nature requires a supernatural designer; we therefore defer to material processes to explain what we see in nature.

IS EVOLUTION AGAINST RELIGION? No. Science deals only with material reality; religion deals with the spiritual, the moral and the ethical.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH TEACHING CREATIONISM AND/OR INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN PUBLIC SCHOOL SCIENCE CLASSES? Both creationism and intelligent design have been tested as scientific hypotheses in the past, and both completely failed. There is no evidence that they are valid scientific ideas. In the absence of such evidence, they are clearly religious ideas, and as such have no place in the science classroom.
Click to expand...
 
I was not being sarcastic. Thanks for answering.

But in the grand scheme of things, I thought in a previous thread we discussed the micro evolution was possible, but macro was not ( or maybe the other way around). Regardless, I have not seen where evolution has been proven scientifically. I would group it with the Philosophy section.
 
Didasko said:
lol

Most assuredly beating a dead horse. Whether your talking evolution or ID we've said all that needs saying in prior threads (in my opinion of course).
Click to expand...

You missed the differentiation between dead horse and strawman.
 
Genesis1315 said:
I was not being sarcastic. Thanks for answering.

But in the grand scheme of things, I thought in a previous thread we discussed the micro evolution was possible, but macro was not ( or maybe the other way around).
Click to expand...

Not only is micro evolution possible, it exists, period. While macro evolution is possible and probable, there just isn't enough evidence to say that it is true. There is, however, enough evidence to label it a theory.

Regardless, I have not seen where evolution has been proven scientifically. I would group it with the Philosophy section.
Click to expand...

I believe your problem lies in your definition of the word evolution. In its simplest form, evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations. This can also include the emergence of new species. Evolution is a very broad term. Evolution is to Christianity as Biological Evolution is to Roman Catholic.

To say that Evolution is a philosophy is terribly erroneous. Philosophy is defined as the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics. We have physical evidence that we can assert the scientific method on which places Evolution squarely as science, not philosophy.
 
Dark Virtue said:
Neither.

The Judge found that the IDers REPEATEDLY LIED (how Christian of them, and under oath too) when they said ID didn't have a basis in Creationism.

Someone better start praying to the Intelligent Designer that perjury charges aren't filed against them.

Don't twist the reasons the IDers lost. They lost because Intelligent Design has no basis in Science and has no right being taught AS PART of the science curriculum. That's ALL this was about. ID can STILL be taught in schools, just not as Science, which it is not.

Here's a link to the 139 page court ruling: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
Click to expand...

Well I thought this was going to happen:

http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1135248153247780.xml&coll=1#continue

WILLIAMSPORT - A federal prosecutor said testimony in the Dover Area School District's intelligent design case is under review to determine if perjury charges should be pursued....

"The inescapable truth is that both Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their Jan. 3, 2005, depositions about their knowledge of the source of the donation for Pandas. ... ," Jones said in his ruling. "This mendacity was a clear and deliberate attempt to hide the source of the donations by [Bonsell and Buckingham] to further ensure that Dover students received a creationist alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution."
Click to expand...

What's the point in putting up copies of the 10 commandments in court houses when Christians don't feel the necessity to follow them? Violating the Eight Commandment equals perjury.
 
WHAT IS WRONG WITH TEACHING CREATIONISM AND/OR INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN PUBLIC SCHOOL SCIENCE CLASSES? Both creationism and intelligent design have been tested as scientific hypotheses in the past, and both completely failed. There is no evidence that they are valid scientific ideas. In the absence of such evidence, they are clearly religious ideas, and as such have no place in the science classroom.
Click to expand...

Macro evolution can be added to the list as well. This quote describes macro evolution perfectly.

It belongs in the philosophy classroom as well if that is where we put ID.

And just a note, I do not support intelligent design either. I support full blown Biblical creationism. ID is a watered down compromise.
 
Dark Virtue said:
What's the point in putting up copies of the 10 commandments in court houses when Christians don't feel the necessity to follow them? Violating the Eight Commandment equals perjury.
Click to expand...

Very broad assumption there. You imply that none of us feel the necessity to follow them.

I'll grant you that none of us are perfect...thus the need for Christ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top