Judge Rules in "Intelligent Design" Case

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Unfortunately 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.

Ah, yes, but surely the precident is set that ID IS NOT SCIENCE it's religion in a US court. Then the constitution takes effect.

Originally posted by flyUnity
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

Hey, when you have a testable hypothesis generated by ID then it'll be science. Until then, it ain't science.

Answers on the back of a postcard......

Originally posted by KneverKnight
OK fine, there is ID and teeth are created so that dentists can drive around in BMWs.
Praise be.

I like it - 1 recc for you!

Originally posted by flyUnity
I 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 e ...[text shortened]... ted homeschool mail program, and I the knowlege I gained from both classes are benaficial to me.

Does ID stem from the scientific method? If it doesn't then it isn't science.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Ah, yes, but surely the precident is set that ID IS NOT SCIENCE it's religion in a US court. Then the constitution takes effect.

No, Xanthos is correct; the ruling is only binding in the Federal District where it was rendered (I forget if there's more than one FD in Pennslylania or not). It can be considered persuasive precedent by other courts, but it need not be. If it had been appealled to a higher court, then a ruling would have been binding in the Federal Circuit in which PA is located (again forget which one; will look up) which comprises a number of states. In order for a ruling to be binding precedent over the entire US, the Supreme Court must rule on the controversy and it will only do so if a case works its way up from the lower courts.

EDIT: The case was decided in the Middle District of Penn (there's three oddly enough). Pennslyvania is in the Third Judicial Circuit along with New Jersey, Delaware and for some reason, the US Virgin Islands.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, Xanthos is correct; the ruling is only binding in the Federal District where it was rendered (I forget if there's more than one FD in Pennslylania or not). It can be considered persuasive precedent by other courts, but it need not be. If it had been appealled to a higher court, then a ruling would have been binding in the Federal Circuit in which PA ...[text shortened]... ird Judicial Circuit along with New Jersey, Delaware and for some reason, the US Virgin Islands.

Cheers for the word up No1 - didn't know that...

Learn something new every day and all that. Would never have that kind of system in the UK.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Cheers for the word up No1 - didn't know that...

Learn something new every day and all that. Would never have that kind of system in the UK.

Probably not but at least I don't have a wear a powdered wig to work.😛

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, Xanthos is correct; the ruling is only binding in the Federal District where it was rendered (I forget if there's more than one FD in Pennslylania or not). It can be considered persuasive precedent by other courts, but it need not be. If it had been appealled to a higher court, then a ruling would have been binding in the Federal Circuit in which PA ...[text shortened]... ird Judicial Circuit along with New Jersey, Delaware and for some reason, the US Virgin Islands.

Thanks for the confirmation No1, my knowledge of laws of countries I don't give a damn about is a little hazy at times.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well, 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.

Evolution is a therory that is very flawed and has been discredited many times over also did i mention that it is a THERORY.Id is backed up by sciences time and time again and when there is a contradiction science makes a retraction concerning their past finds.

Originally posted by mattlock
Evolution is a therory that is very flawed and has been discredited many times over also did i mention that it is a THERORY.Id is backed up by sciences time and time again and when there is a contradiction science makes a retraction concerning their past finds.

No one fear, Matlock is on the case. He's found scientific evidence for ID that no else knows about. Enlighten us Matlock.

Here is the best layman's definition of a scientific theory I've come across (I wish I could give the person responsible for it credit but I don't know who wrote it).

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

To summerise, the Theory of Evolution is a theory. A scientific theory. That does not mean it was made up by some bored scientist during a drinking binge.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
No one fear, Matlock is on the case. He's found scientific evidence for ID that no else knows about. Enlighten us Matlock.

Here is the best layman's definition of a scientific theory I've come across (I wish I could give the person responsible for it credit but I don't know who wrote it).

[i]Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to ex ...[text shortened]... tific theory. That does not mean it was made up by some bored scientist during a drinking binge.

Great post mate - well said.


"To summerise, the Theory of Evolution is a theory. A scientific theory. That does not mean it was made up by some bored scientist during a drinking binge."

Hey, I have some of my best ideas when I'm drunk! I think the brain relaxes and the connections come because random ideas collide and merge. Just a shame I can never remember them in the morning....

Originally posted by flyUnity
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

Yes, you have (unless by "met" you mean face-to-face).

Originally posted by flyUnity
I 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 e ...[text shortened]... ted homeschool mail program, and I the knowlege I gained from both classes are benaficial to me.

You missed the point, which speaks poorly of your homeschooling.

(Of course, I won't generalize about homeschooling from your case, as I homeschooled my son through middle school, and I teach chess to homeschoolers in a home-link setting.)

But seriously, theres allot more "science" in ID then most people make out to be. Its not just "God created the earth, THE END"

Really? I have read through some of Behe's stuff. I have examined some of Dembski's articles. Behe's "irreducible complexity" is not based upon anything other than his professional opinion. It amounts to "I don't see (read choose not to see) how these structures could arise from more basic structures, therefore they did not. Dembski is trying like hell from the mathematical side to create a definition by which we could determine whether a structure was in fact designed. Unfortunately, his mathematics is so bad that no one will give him the time of day. It looks impressive to the mathematically illiterate, but for some one who understands the notation and the theory, it is easily discernable as a bunch of hot air. As one acquaintance of mine pointed out, the Discovery Institute touts Dembski as the "Isaac Newton of Information Theory" but he has not published a single ID article in any journal on Information Theory nor has anybody actually active in that field ever heard of Dembski as a scholar of that field.

As it stands now, ID does not have a "designer;" it does not have a mechanism by which the designer designed; it does not have a method by which to distinguish things that are designed from things that are not designed. To put it simply, ID does not have a theory. Add to this no research, no peer-reviewed work in reputable journals, and no predictions by which to put ID to the test, and you see ID for what it is: PR campaign, a thinly disguised attempt to get around the Edwards case in order to teach creationism, in substance if not in name, to impressionable school children.

If you know of real science in ID, then please bring it here and explain it to me because so far, despite my sincere interest, I have yet to find any. Do not evade by offering a link, or an order to read Darwin's Black Box or Darwin on Trial, but rather bring here the evidence and be prepared to defend it, in substance not by some appeal to universal skepticism. Bring me some of Dembski's "creation math" and try to tell me it's valid.

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.

I'm sure you remember that I too was homeschooled. I also took classes in Evolution and ID from a mail program. Then I had the good fortune to study evolution again from a professor who did not have a religious agenda. I can now honestly and informedly testify that the evolution that I learned in the homeschool class was a distortion of science.

The fact that the editors of "Of Pandas and People" simply replaced the words "creation," "creationism," and "creationist" with ID equivalents right after suffering a great defeat in the US Supreme Court should be enough evidence for any honest person to recognize the bogus intentions of Disc. Inst. and its proponents.

Quite frankly, I am happy with their ruling. As much of an avid theist and supporter of theology in general being taught in public schools, the place for this is NOT, I repeat, NOT the science class.

ID in a science class makes as much sense as learning to bake cookies in history class, playing a trombone in english literature class, or doing trigonometry in art class.