Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103

    Christians Lied about Intelligent Design -- Bush's Republican Judge throws it out

    Dunno how this issue hasn't been commented on yet . . . seems that one of Bush's conservative Republican appointee concluded that the religious conservatives on the Dover PA school board (1) lied about their motives, and (2) didn't know much about Intelligent Design.

    Ya, It's a bunch of myth. Suitable for a class of comparative religion, maybe, but certainly not for science class. And the former (recently ousted) fanatics on the school board deserved to be kicked out on their keisters . . .

    -Tock
    ------------------------------------------


    http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/new...12_22_2005.asp


    Praise for the Kitzmiller verdict

    The decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover -- the first challenge to the constitutionality of teaching "intelligent design" in the public school science classroom -- was issued on December 20, 2005, and the plaintiffs were victorious. In his detailed 139-page decision, Judge John E. Jones III concluded, "The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." The Dover Area School Board was therefore ordered to refrain "from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID." The decision (PDF) was scathing, both about the scientific credibility of "intelligent design" (which Jones wrote "is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community") and about the behavior of the defendants (whom Jones castigated for "breathtaking inanity" in adopting the objectionable policy). Following the resounding legal triumph, educational, scientific, and civil liberties groups were quick to praise the decision. And editorial writers around the country, from The New York Times and the Washington Post to the York Daily Record and the York Dispatch, offered their kudos as well.

    From the educational community, the National Science Teachers Association and the National Association of Biology Teachers both hailed the decision. In a statement dated December 20, 2005, NSTA's executive director Gerry Wheeler said, "This is a great day for science education ... Judge Jones's decision will echo far beyond Pennsylvania because not only does it maintain sound science for the students of Dover, but his comprehensive and detailed opinion also provides great clarity that ID is not science and has no place in science instruction. The judge's opinion is a 'must read' for school boards and communities that are addressing this issue." NSTA's president Maki Padilla added, "We value the religious views of our students, but it is unfair to teach them about nonscientific ideas within the science classroom; it blurs the line between what is science and what is faith. As science educators, our job is to teach about scientific theories and facts, not faith or opinion." Similarly, in a statement dated December 20, 2005, NABT's executive director Wayne W. Carley said, "This is an important day for our nation's youth ... By keeping intelligent design out of the science classroom, Dover's students will receive a much better education. Judge Jones's decision both reinforces the establishment clause of the First Amendment and protects the academic freedom of the Dover Public Schools." He added, "Judge Jones clearly understands that evolution is strong, powerfully documented science that should not be diluted with non-scientific concepts." And NABT's president-elect Toby M. Horn succinctly explained, "Science is based on evidence; there is no evidence for intelligent design."

    Representing the scientific community, Alan Leshner of the American Association for the Advancement of Science -- the world's largest general scientific society -- said in a statement dated December 20, 2005, "We are heartened by Judge Jones' decision, which recognizes that Intelligent Design was injected into Dover's 9th grade biology classes for religious reasons rather than scientific reasons. And on behalf of the entire U.S. scientific community, we are grateful for the courage of science teachers and parents in Dover, who worked so hard and took such risks to preserve the integrity of science education in our public schools." He added, "We'd like to think that all sides would now abide by the judge's decision and unify around the goal of improving science education -- this is crucial in our increasingly competitive world. But at a minimum, we hope this decision will discourage efforts to introduce Intelligent Design into science classes in other communities. We should stick to teaching science in science classes -- that's best for our students, and best for the long-term scientific and economic strength of our nation." The American Institute of Biological Sciences and the American Society for Cell Biology agreed. In a statement dated December 21, 2005, ASCB's president Zena Werb said, "Yesterday was a great day for science education. ... The ruling by Judge Jones preserves the notion that science classrooms are solely for the teaching of science." And the incoming president of AIBS, Kent Holsinger, said in a statement dated December 20, 2005, "The real winners of this case are Dover students ... Students should be able to learn about the nature of science, which can be tested based on our observations of the natural world. Intelligent design does not fit that criterion."

    Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union, and People for the American Way all also praised Judge Jones's decision. AU, which with the Pennsylvania ACLU and Pepper Hamilton LLP represented the plaintiffs, issued a statement on December 20, 2005, describing the decision as "a significant blow to Religious Right-led efforts to sneak fundamentalist dogma into public schools under the guise of science." AU's executive director, the Reverend Barry Lynn, said, "This is a tremendous victory for public schools and religious freedom ... It means that school board members have no right to impose their personal religious beliefs on students through the school curriculum," adding, "Public schools should teach science in science class, and let parents make their own decisions about religion." Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the ACLU, said in a statement issued on December 20, 2005, "We are extremely pleased that the court recognized that 'intelligent design' is not science and that it also is not constitutional ... As the court recognized, activists sought to bring 'intelligent design' into Dover as a test case, and in the process, brought division to a small community. We hope today's decision sends a strong message to proponents of creationism that it is inappropriate to attempt to advance a particular religious belief at the expense of our children's education." People For the American Way Foundation President Ralph G. Neas concurred, saying in a statement dated December 20, 2005, "Today's ruling is a momentous affirmation of the Constitution's prohibition of government endorsement of religion ... The court recognized that 'intelligent design' is nothing more than religious creationism in disguise, and that, as such, it may not be taught as science in public schools. This decision is a resounding victory for science education, for public school students, and for the Constitution."

    Praise for the Kitzmiller verdict was similarly unstinted in editorial pages across the country. The New York Times's editorial (December 22, 2005) described Judge Jones's decision as "a striking repudiation of intelligent design" and noted that it could not be taken as the product of a liberal activist judge: "He is a lifelong Republican, appointed to the bench by President Bush, and has been praised for his integrity and intellect. Indeed, as the judge pointed out, the real activists in this case were ill-informed school board members, aided by a public interest law firm that promotes Christian values, who combined to drive the board to adopt an imprudent and unconstitutional policy." Alluding to ongoing controversies in Georgia and Kansas, the editorial writer also remarked, "No one believes that this thoroughgoing repudiation of intelligent design will end the incessant warfare over evolution. But any community that is worried about the ability of its students to compete in a global economy would be wise to keep supernatural explanations out of its science classes." The Washington Post's editorial (December 22, 2005) characterized the decision as "a model for judicial consideration of the proliferating effort to use intelligent design to undermine the teaching of biology." The Los Angeles Times's editorial (December 22, 2005) concluded, "The Dover schools come out bruised but wiser, after dragging students and parents through what the judge labeled 'this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.' Recent elections threw out the school board's intelligent design crowd, and the district will not appeal. No doubt other school board members elsewhere will make the same mistakes, raising legal troubles instead of academic standards. But perhaps Jones' sweeping and sometimes acerbic ruling will dissuade a few of the smarter ones from trying."

    The Kitzmiller decision is also receiving kudos from legal commentators. In The Legal Intelligencer (December 21, 2005), Hank Grezlak wrote, "What [Judge Jones] did in his opinion, systematically and ruthlessly, was expose intelligent design as creationism, minus the biblical fig leaf, and advanced by those with a clear, unscientific agenda: to get God (more specifically, a Christian one) back into the sciences." Interviewed on CNN (December 20, 2005), Jeffrey Toobin described the decision as "a major, major decision" that "will be a very important precedent that other judges will look to in deciding whether intelligent design may be tried elsewhere in the country." And in his analysis for CBS News (December 21, 2005), Andrew Cohen wrote, "According to the evidence as evaluated by Judge Jones, a bunch of manipulative board members in Dover decided that they wanted to inject into the science curriculum of their public schools a religious element that they knew or reasonably should have known to be impermissible under the First Amendment. Yet they tried anyway, going to somewhat comical lengths to try to get around what they knew or should have known was well-established and well-reasoned law. In so doing, they subjected themselves to scorn and the notion of Intelligent Design to the kind of scrutiny it clearly could not withstand." He added, "Darwin would be proud of this ruling. And come to think of it, so would Clarence Darrow."

    Meanwhile, back in Dover, Pennsylvania, the local papers are in agreement. The York Dispatch's editorial (December 21, 2005) was caustic about the board's support of the objectionable policy: "Judge Jones in his 139-page ruling said the 'citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID policy.' The judge was being too kind by several degrees. In violating the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the board members -- especially those who lied on the witness stand in a pathetic attempt to defend their insistence on teaching creationism along with valid science -- threw their oaths as public servants to uphold the law out the window. In demanding that ninth-grade biology students be informed that alternatives existed to the Darwinian theory of evolution, the purely religious motives of creationism supporters was more than obvious. They encouraged students to keep an open mind, while offering intelligent design as the only alternative. That's a religious view and a clear violation of the Constitution." And the York Daily Record's editorial (December 21, 2005) said, "Judge Jones got it exactly right, eviscerating the pathetic case put forth by the defense," and called for the investigation of perjury charges against former board members William Buckingham and Alan Bonsell -- a call that was apparently heeded; the Harrisburg Patriot-News (December 22, 2005) reports that a federal prosecutor is reviewing the testimony in order to determine whether charges ought to be filed.



    December 22, 2005

  2. #2
    BeerBaron's Avatar
    BeerBaron is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,458
    I have been following the story since it's not too far from where I live. I'm glad ID is seen for what it's worth in court.

  3. #3
    boots555's Avatar
    boots555 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Looks like a large hand
    Posts
    625
    I cant wait to respond to this tomarrow.


    Beer, can you give a deductive or inductive arguement against ID.
    Also, what is ID worth and why should we teach atheism. I think it is pretty obvious that theistic belief if far more justified.

  4. #4
    YoRgO17 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    131
    u can controll those that believe they have a purpose.

    heres a few quotes i forget where i got em but i think there cool

    "Takes more faith to be an atheist then it ever will to believe in God."

    "Greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exsist."

  5. #5
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    books(why on earth is your name changed lol???) now matter how you turn it around ID isnt a scientific theory because it isnt falsifiable. That is all the argument we will ever need.
    Everything comes down to that point.

    Science class should deal with science in the way scientists defines it.

    Evolution doesnt have to be atheistic. In fact evolution(the biological theory) makes no claim whatsoever about a creator just as no other scientific theory does.

  6. #6
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    acctualy any scientific theory that does implicitly rule out the existance of a creator would by default not be a scientific theory since it would make a unfalsifiable claim.

    Its a whole different ball game to base a atheistic worldview on science. But science in itself is not atheistic. It does however show the flaws in organised religion teachings.

  7. #7
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by boots555
    Also, what is ID worth
    Two cents. Everybody has their two cents worth to chime in, and this must be yours.
    Of course, lots of preachers, religious organizations and religious publishers are making a lot of $$$ from this pap. And, of course, the lawyers who wage court battles. So for them, it's worth quite a bit more.

    Intrinsically though, it's not worth a damm. It does not even remotely represent the way things came about . . . on the other hand, it's worth a good laugh, as it shows how silly human beings can be, and what nonsense we are capable of beleiving.








    Quote Originally Posted by boots555
    and why should we teach atheism.
    Who's teaching atheism?
    The most I've ever seen are some references to atheism in the occasional philosophy class.
    If you're talking about teaching math, literature, history, science, and art without mention of Krishna, Quetzecotl, Jehovah, Jesus, Muhammed, Zoroaster, Zeus, or Me, well, tough toenails. 2 + 2 = 4 no matter what god or gods are running the universe, and cells will split by mitosis exactly the same regardless of whether Krishna rose from the dead or not.

    Seems to me that students should be taught about atheism, just the same as theism. Probably should do it in a philosophy or literature class, where both views got equal time. Half the course on atheism, the other half on theism, split into all the various configurations thereof. Whatcha think about this idea, Bubba?






    Quote Originally Posted by boots555
    I think it is pretty obvious that theistic belief if far more justified.
    You're welcome to your opinion, but it seems to me that schools ought to teach both atheist and theist philosophy, and then let the students decide for themselves what makes sense, instead of the current heavy leaning toward religious BS. Ya, equal time for both, that's what I say . . .

    -Tock
    Last edited by Tock; 12-27-2005 at 12:15 PM.

  8. #8
    boots555's Avatar
    boots555 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Looks like a large hand
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by johan
    books(why on earth is your name changed lol???) now matter how you turn it around ID isnt a scientific theory because it isnt falsifiable. That is all the argument we will ever need.
    Everything comes down to that point.

    Science class should deal with science in the way scientists defines it.

    Evolution doesnt have to be atheistic. In fact evolution(the biological theory) makes no claim whatsoever about a creator just as no other scientific theory does.

    Someone changed my password Johan. I am not sure what to do, mybe you can help me out. I want my old name back.

    Athesim is being taught in schools today with textbooks that attempt to give a naturalistic explanation to everything.
    I never claimed all evolution was atheistic.


    The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

    You are wrong about falsifiability johan, no offense.


    Hugh Hewitt apparently kicked off a discussion in the blogosphere concerning Intelligent Design. One selection of Rand Simberg's response to Hugh, in particular, is getting coverage over at the Volokh Conspiracy:

    How science works is by putting forth theories that are disprovable, not ones that are provable. When all other theories have been disproven, those still standing are the ones adopted by most scientists. ID is not a scientific theory, because it fails the test of being disprovable (or to be more precise, non-falsifiable), right out of the box. If Hugh [Hewitt] doesn't believe this, then let him postulate an experiment that one could perform, even in thought, that would show it to be false.

    Arguments like this make the hair on the back of my neck stand on end, for a number of reasons.

    Consider falsifiability as a general principle of securing knowledge, or, more modestly, some condition of epistemic benefit (Popperians may not like the use of ‘knowledge’). Call this modest condition EB. Suppose someone (not Mr. Simberg) put forth the following propostion, F: “Theories must be falsifiable to secure EB.” The difficulty with F is that it appears to be self-defeating. F is a theory of knowledge or epistemic benefit itself, so F applies to itself; i.e. “F must be falsifiable to secure EB.” And just how is F falsifiable? Is it falsifiable by empirical means? It doesn’t seem so. What test would falsify F?

    Not only does it seem difficult to falsify F, but whatever test we come up with, when stated in relation to F, would also have to be falsifiable. In other words, it looks like we’re in for an infinite regress that can never secure EB, if F is true.

    So falsifiability is not a general test for knowledge (or epistemic benefit). We can have knowledge of things without falsification. I bring this up because pretty much what I’ve outlined above was posited for verification as a criterion of meaning on par with scientific claims. Similarly, Popper was trying to firm up the demarcation between science and "pseudoscience" -- but even on its own terms, the discipline of science cannot be the sole beacon of truth or knowledge.

    To be clear, I’m not claiming that Mr. Simberg was asserting something like proposition F above. However, I think a lot of the demarcation arguments which survive today -- even when framed more modestly -- still get a lot of unfounded authority from throwing about terms like falsification. Scientists and science enthusiasts need to remember the lesson of fatally flawed movements like logical positivism so that various claims outside of the typical purview of science are not marginalized. We have, for example, a tremendous need to recognize the possibility of ethical (and perhaps even religious) knowledge, if science is to be properly directed toward doing good (e.g. curing cancer) rather than evil (e.g. the Tuskegee or Nazi experiments).

    December 28, 2004 in Current Affairs, Philosophy, Religion, Science

  9. #9
    BeerBaron's Avatar
    BeerBaron is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,458
    Quote Originally Posted by boots555

    Athesim is being taught in schools today with textbooks that attempt to give a naturalistic explanation to everything.
    I never claimed all evolution was atheistic.
    Methodological naturalism is what the scientific method is based on; it assumes nothing about the existence or nonexistence of supernatural powers. ID is based on the premise supernatural powers do exist which is why it is not science.

    Quote Originally Posted by boots555
    The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
    ID a disagreement about science, but not a scientific disagreement. I'll elaborate more if you wish but I have to go now.

  10. #10
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    Quote Originally Posted by boots555
    Athesim is being taught in schools today with textbooks that attempt to give a naturalistic explanation to everything.
    No, naturalistic explanations do not necessarily lead to atheism, so your statement is flawed.
    And there's a good reason to favor naturalistic explanations over theistic BS -- it's because if you want to really understand something, the scientific method is the best way to get reliable information anyone has discovered.

    Remember the Salem Witch Trials? Ya, folks were put to death on the basis of "spectral evidence"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_evidence
    which was eventually banned by Governor Phips of Massachusetts for obvious reasons. "As accusations of witchcraft spiralled, even Phips' own wife, Lady Mary Phips, was named as a witch. Soon thereafter, in October of 1692, Phips ordered spectral evidence and testimony would no longer suffice to convict suspects in future trials." http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...m/SAL_BPHI.HTM

    Anyway, if you want to present something as true in either court or public schools, you gotta have substantive evidence. The textbooks you so bitterly complain about have this. The Judge in the "Intelligent Design" case heard all the evidence, and ruled that not only was it a bunch of crap, but that Christians LIED about their motives for pushing this crap.






    Quote Originally Posted by boots555
    The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
    Then it is a RELIGIOUS theory, as it attributes existing conditions to "an intelligent cause" without any scientific evidence that this "intelligent cause" exists. Science, on the other hand, methodically observes what's going on in nature, and draws conclusions based on those observations. Science takes no position, one way or the other, about God.







    Quote Originally Posted by boots555
    ID is thus a scientific disagreement
    No it's not, because it is not science.

    -Tock

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •