http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/
No surprise; ID is a thinly veiled attempt to oust evolution (a scientific theory) from science classes and replace it with creationism (a religious dogma). The school board does not plan to appeal; 8 pro-ID members were thrown out by the embarrassed voters of Harrisburg in the last election.
Originally posted by no1marauderVICTORY! VICTORY! Let the bells chime in celebration throughout the land. We have been saved (at least momentarily) from making ourselves complete laughingstocks on the world stage.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/
No surprise; ID is a thinly veiled attempt to oust evolution (a scientific theory) from science classes and replace it with creationism (a religious dogma). The school board does not plan to appeal; 8 pro-ID members were thrown out by the embarrassed voters of Harrisburg in the last election.
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, that's a bloody relief. Now, despite being an evolutionist I have no qualms with ID being taught - in a religious education type class. Biology is a science, ID is not science, simply because there can be no proof, therefore it should not be taught in biology classes.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/
No surprise; ID is a thinly veiled attempt to oust evolution (a scientific theory) from science classes and replace it with creationism (a religious dogma). The school board does not plan to appeal; 8 pro-ID members were thrown out by the embarrassed voters of Harrisburg in the last election.
Originally posted by no1marauderHow could it be seen as anything but a religious concept when one of the persons supporting it in the trail said, "A man died on a cross 2000 years ago. Is no one going to stand up for him?"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/
No surprise; ID is a thinly veiled attempt to oust evolution (a scientific theory) from science classes and replace it with creationism (a religious dogma). The school board does not plan to appeal; 8 pro-ID members were thrown out by the embarrassed voters of Harrisburg in the last election.
Here's the judge's conclusion:
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.
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
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.
To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants 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. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions. Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
Awesome. Completely Awesome.
Originally posted by XanthosNZDo you suppose this means that they could theoretically get ID wiped from the curiculum of every American science classroom, since ID has now been ruled to be a religious docterine rather than a scientific theory? Separarion of church and state is in the constitution after all.
Here's the judge's conclusion:
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, [b]we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover ...[text shortened]... costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
Awesome. Completely Awesome.
Originally posted by scottishinnzUnfortunately as far as I know this case has no legal standing outside of Pa. For it to become nationwide the board would have to appeal which they won't because all the members who voted for ID have been ousted in the latest election.
Do you suppose this means that they could theoretically get ID wiped from the curiculum of every American science classroom, since ID has now been ruled to be a religious docterine rather than a scientific theory? Separarion of church and state is in the constitution after all.
Originally posted by flyUnityYou've simply described a common feature of those who have been brainwashed, then drawn a conclusion from facts that were not stated.
Its interesting that I have never met somone who took ID courses, that dont think it should be taught. No wonder they think its not sscience if they know nothing about it
Your underlying assumption is that all those opposed have not had a class in ID (because you have not met anyone opposed who has had such a class), and you add to this assumption the notion that one cannot understand something without taking a class in the subject. School is not the only way people learn.
Most of those who do teach classes in ID never took a class in it. Such classes have come into existence only recently, and someone must teach them.
Originally posted by flyUnityOK fine, there is ID and teeth are created so that dentists can drive around in BMWs.
Its interesting that I have never met somone who took ID courses, that dont think it should be taught. No wonder they think its not sscience if they know nothing about it
Praise be.
Originally posted by WulebgrI dont think one should teach ID unless they have the proper education in it. (Unless its Creation in a religious class) But seriously, theres allot more "science" in ID then most people make out to be. Its not just "God created the earth, THE END" I dont think schools should be limited at what they teach. I wouldnt make it a mandatory class, just an extra credit class, as with all religion and so called science. IDK, but I guess the people and the judge voted againts it, so my opionion is useless. I respect the decision of the judge and the people who voted againts it.
You've simply described a common feature of those who have been brainwashed, then drawn a conclusion from facts that were not stated.
Your underlying assumption is that all those opposed have not had a class in ID (because you have not met anyone opposed who has had such a class), and you add to this assumption the notion that one cannot understand somet ...[text shortened]... a class in it. Such classes have come into existence only recently, and someone must teach them.
I was homeschooled, and took both Evolution and ID classes from a credited homeschool mail program, and I the knowlege I gained from both classes are benaficial to me.