Judge Rules in "Intelligent Design" Case

Originally posted by Omnislash
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.

Yep Omni,

I think we all know that you're religious, but you're the religious type that I like. You're a moderate. The type of guy who takes religion for what it can teach you about yourself, not about being 'the absolute irrefutable truth'. To my mind (and you know I'm not religious) that's what religion should be all about, getting in touch with yourself and others. As a guy, you're interested in science as a means of finding out about the world - you seem to believe it should be questioned, which is fine because you also question religion.

To all you fundy theists out there, this is a message; I, and many other evolutionists are not anti-religion, we're just anti-lies, anti-being repressed by individuals with political and / or religious agendas, anti-hypocracy and anti-assh*les!

Originally posted by Omnislash
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.

I could easily see trigonometry in art classes, but other than that, you are completely right! Well said!

Originally posted by nickybutt
I could easily see trigonometry in art classes, but other than that, you are completely right! Well said!

Hey Nick,

I just read your profile and it says you juggle your pregnant wife and child. You must be strong - I bet they're heavy! Don't drop them whatever you do - it's not good for them!!!!

L 😉

Originally posted by no1marauder
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.

Just out of curiosity, why does the "separation of church and state" clause not prevent public schools from teaching about religion at all?

EDIT: FWIW, I don't think ID should be taught in the science classroom either. But some of the science that goes into ID (e.g. Behe's Irreducible Complexity) probably should.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
But some of the science that goes into ID (e.g. Behe's Irreducible Complexity) probably should.

Why should this be taught? In my opinion it is not science and even you can hardly call it mainstream science. We dont teach every single scientists proposals to children but rather teach the main theories that are accepted as accurate by the majority of the scientific community. If you wish to specialize at university level into areas that have only a few supporters then that is well and good.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Just out of curiosity, why does the "separation of church and state" clause not prevent public schools from teaching about religion at all?

EDIT: FWIW, I don't think ID should be taught in the science classroom either. But some of the science that goes into ID (e.g. Behe's Irreducible Complexity) probably should.

The entire report makes for very interesting reading (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmiller.pdf)

Such as:

"Lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definitions of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology."

or even more telling:

"Professor Behe admitted in “Reply to My Critics” that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address “the task facing natural selection.” (P-718 at 695). Professor Behe specifically explained that “[t]he current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an already functioning system,” but “[t]he difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems; it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place.” In that article, Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to “repair this defect in future work;” however, he has failed to do so even four years after elucidating his defect."

Hell everything from page 72 to 79 is just destroying Behe's hypothesis (NOT theory) of Irreducible Complexity.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why should this be taught? In my opinion it is not science and even you can hardly call it mainstream science. We dont teach every single scientists proposals to children but rather teach the main theories that are accepted as accurate by the majority of the scientific community. If you wish to specialize at university level into areas that have only a few supporters then that is well and good.

1. Two reasons why it should be taught:
a. It provides a good illustration of the scientific method. Scientific theories are, and must be, often challenged. Not all challenges are going to be successful - but that does not mean an established theory should not be challenged as new data arises.
b. It is popular with the ID movement and many kids are going to encounter it at some point in their lives. Better for them to have the science right than be bamboozled by pamphlets.

2. Why is IrrCo not science? Or, at least, the examples Behe brought up to support his hypothesis?

3. What's "mainstream science"? Are you saying that science is not objective - just popular and not-popular (among scientists)?

In any case, there are plenty of examples of theories that are no longer "mainstream science" but are still taught to kids - e.g. Newtonian mechanics, the Planetary Model of the Atom etc.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
The entire report makes for very interesting reading (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmiller.pdf)

Such as:

"Lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definitions of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology."

or even more telling:

"Professor Behe admitted in “Reply to My Critics” that there ...[text shortened]... from page 72 to 79 is just destroying Behe's hypothesis (NOT theory) of Irreducible Complexity.

Two points on your quotes (I haven't been able to open up the report yet, so I could be interpreting them out of context):

1. That sounds like a thinly-veiled ad hominem.
2. Four years isn't a hell of a long time in research.

Originally posted by no1marauder
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.

I'm not sure I'd call ID a veiled attempt at religion, but it does
presume one is able to 'recognize' design, and given the stance
against such a proposition even to presume the possibility exists
is a slap in the face of those that don't want to see it or even
hear about it.
Kelly

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Two points on your quotes (I haven't been able to open up the report yet, so I could be interpreting them out of context):

1. That sounds like a thinly-veiled ad hominem.
2. Four years isn't a hell of a long time in research.

Get back to me when you've read the pages I mentioned.

Kelly, ID failed the Lemon test. It therefore should not be taught in schools.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm not sure I'd call ID a veiled attempt at religion, but it does
presume one is able to 'recognize' design, and given the stance
against such a proposition even to presume the possibility exists
is a slap in the face of those that don't want to see it or even
hear about it.
Kelly

As I wrote before, the ID gang lacks even a formal standard by which to determine whether something is designed or not. If ID is going to claim some things are designed, they need to, among other things, establish exactly how we can recognize design from non-design. As Behe and the whole ID crew have it now, ID in practice means looking at something and declaring that in their opinion it is "irreducibly complex." They lack any ex ante standard by which to make their determination.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Just out of curiosity, why does the "separation of church and state" clause not prevent public schools from teaching about religion at all?

There is no "separation of church and state" clause in the U.S. Constitution. Rather, the term separation of church and state is judicial doctrine that developed in the practical application of the "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The phrase, "wall of separation between church and state" originated in letter President Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association. Of course, it is not the President's job to interpret the Constitution, but as Jefferson is also a principle author of the Bill of Rights, the Courts have looked to this letter in understanding the intent of the Framers.

Jefferson wrote, in part, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

Public schools, when they teach about religion, must do so as a secular field of study. They may offer history of religion, for example, but not catechism.

It is interesting that those who claim the notion of "separation of church and state" is not a Constitutional principle, look to the "intent of the framers" as decisive on other matters, but not on this one. It's all about results.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
It's not science. It provides not a single testable, refutable hypothesis. That is the definition of "science".

It's a philosophy. One that I find aesthetically pleasing and one that makes sense to me. But it is not science and has no place whatsoever in a science classroom. "Religious Philosophy" - fine, you can put it in there. Not biology.

You don't seem to use the term "creationism" in quite the same sense that most do. While it may be true that someone who believes in a creator is a creationist in a broad sense, most go further to define the term as also meaning the rejection of evolution. Someone who believes in a creator god that is the guiding hand behind evolution (as I believe you've said you do) would not be a creationist in the narrower sense of the word.