PDA

View Full Version : Marching resolutely towards fascism



jetsetlemming
12-20-2005, 08:25 PM
HARRISBURG, Pa. - In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching "intelligent design" in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violated the constitutional separation of church and state.
The ruling was a major setback to the intelligent design movement, which is also waging battles in Georgia and Kansas. Intelligent design holds that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher force.

Jones decried the "breathtaking inanity" of the Dover policy and accused several board members of lying to conceal their true motive, which he said was to promote religion.

A six-week trial over the issue yielded "overwhelming evidence" establishing that intelligent design "is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory," said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago.

The school system said it will probably not appeal the ruling, because several members who backed intelligent design were ousted in November's elections and replaced with a new slate opposed to the policy.

During the trial, the board argued that it was trying improve science education by exposing students to alternatives to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection.

The policy required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade lessons on evolution. The statement said Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps." It referred students to an intelligent-design textbook, "Of Pandas and People."

But the judge said: "We find 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."

In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot require public schools to balance evolution lessons by teaching creationism.

Eric Rothschild, an attorney for the families who challenged the policy, called the ruling "a real vindication for the parents who had the courage to stand up and say there was something wrong in their school district."

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which represented the school district and describes its mission as defending the religious freedom of Christians, said the ruling appeared to be "an ad hominem attack on scientists who happen to believe in God."

It was the latest chapter in a debate over the teaching of evolution dating back to the Scopes trial, in which Tennessee biology teacher John T. Scopes was fined $100 for violating a state law against teaching evolution.

Earlier this month, a federal appeals court in Georgia heard arguments over whether a suburban Atlanta school district had the right to put stickers on biology textbooks describing evolution as a theory, not fact. A federal judge last January ordered the stickers removed.

In November, state education officials in Kansas adopted new classroom science standards that call the theory of evolution into question.

President Bush also weighed in on the issue of intelligent design recently, saying schools should present the concept when teaching about the origins of life.
In his ruling, Jones said that while intelligent design, or ID, arguments "may be true, a proposition on which the court takes no position, ID is not science." Among other things, the judge said intelligent design "violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation"; it relies on "flawed and illogical" arguments; and its attacks on evolution "have been refuted by the scientific community."



"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," he wrote.

The judge also said: "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."

Former school board member William Buckingham, who advanced the policy, said from his new home in Mount Airy, N.C., that he still feels the board did the right thing.

"I'm still waiting for a judge or anyone to show me anywhere in the Constitution where there's a separation of church and state," he said. "We didn't lose; we were robbed."

The controversy divided Dover and surrounding Dover Township, a rural area of nearly 20,000 residents about 20 miles south of Harrisburg. It galvanized voters in the Nov. 8 school board election to oust several members who supported the policy. The new school board president, Bernadette Reinking, said the board intends to remove intelligent design from the science curriculum and place it in an elective social studies class. "As far as I can tell you, there is no intent to appeal," she said.

jetsetlemming
12-20-2005, 08:28 PM
Summary: "How dare you mention the existence of something I don't agree with! To the dungeons with you!"

ThotPolice
12-21-2005, 02:10 AM
“Intelligent design holds that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher force.”

Yeah They must have that makes sense! :/ So that higher force was god huh?

So he IS promoting religion hey?

And that is not allowed in American schools huh?

So good thing they put a stop to that nonsense!

Intelligent design IS a fundamentalist spin on creationism I believe in a secular public society, but in no way would wish to put an end to religious communities or there beliefs nor would I wish to teach “natural design” (that’s my spin on evolution) in a Sunday school class.
I think it is up to the parents to raise the children with the beliefs they see fit,(last time I checked you are still free to do that) NOT the state or schools.

Public teachers that choose to preach thier beliefs this way are sneaky and under handed.(It's called catholic school apply there)

Did he not violate policy?

jetsetlemming
12-21-2005, 03:14 PM
Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life on earth, just as intelligent design doesn't say anything about life changing. Therefore, intelligent design is the only popular theory discussing the topic of the origin of life. By banning the very mention of intelligent design, the judge banned the entire topic, as there is nothing on the subject in the theory of evolution. Banning whole subjects is fascism. Mentioning intelligent design isn't any more of a preaching of one's personal beliefs than is teaching evolution as the end all truth (it's real, but it's not complete in any sense). Banning a subject is banning free thought and speech. It can only be harmful to students for their teachers to be outlawed from bringing up the theory in class, just as if evolution was banned.

jetsetlemming
12-21-2005, 03:15 PM
Intelligent design isn't creationism, btw. Creationism says God did it, id says "something". Some people believe the origin of life is extraterrestrial. I think it's definitely possible life began somewhere else besides earth.

ThotPolice
12-23-2005, 01:23 AM
Right but the fact is there are many scientific theories as to the origin of life(one involves microbes brought to earth from a meteor)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life)

and many facts that support evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)

Humans have relied on myth (mythos) to fill in for facts when dealing with unknowns, this does not mean they are right and should be taught to young minds.

I think the scientific theories out there make more sense than focusing on god or aliens; at least science leaves it open for more research and strives for a definite answer. Intelligent design kind of says; stop looking for clues its beyond our capacity. A step backward. And a step that supports the reality of a god without any proof.

jetsetlemming
12-23-2005, 03:24 PM
For the most part, scientific theories dealing with the origin (evolution does not), they prety much follow the quote from darwin in that wikipedia article: "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." However, while most scientists just look at this and say, "Yeah, thats fine, Darwin said it", it's not exactly likely. In Darwin's day, they had no idea what was inside a cell. They didn't know about the hundreds of little tiny perfect parts that are all co-dependent and neccesary. If you look at all the different pieces, they almost resemble a machine. If you took any of those parts out, the machine would break and the cell would die. This doesn't fit with the idea that all that evolved, because evolution doesn't develope everything at once; it goes one gene at a time via mutation. You can't mutate non-life into life. Darwin's theory only explains creatures changing from on to another, based on mutation of DNA (though thats not something he mentions), and natural selection. I'm not trying to dissprove anything; evolution is a valid theory. However, so is intelligent design. It's not just a religous theory (thats creationism, btw), actual scientists have come to the conclusion that life forming from random chemicals (and I think I should mention that some of those chemicals that Darwin mentioned, like protien, don't exist outside life forms except as a relic of a dead life form. It's organic and therefore couldn't be present pre-life) is about as likely as a computer, not only fully functional but fully programmed appearing on it's own by accident. Discussing intelligent design doesn't encourage that you give up on pondering the issue; it introduces it so you can think about it and come to your own conclusions. It doesn't suggest that its the final thought and the issue is closed and you shouldn't bother thinking about it any more than the theory of evolution (which is, after all, a theory) does. It's impossible to really prove for a fact the origins of life, because that would require scientists somehow witnessing new life appear out of nowhere, which has yet to happen and probably won't. All I'm saying is that to completely ban the topic is very counter-productive to free thought and science.

ThotPolice
12-23-2005, 04:21 PM
For the most part, scientific theories dealing with the origin (evolution does not), they prety much follow the quote from darwin in that wikipedia article: "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." However, while most scientists just look at this and say, "Yeah, thats fine, Darwin said it", it's not exactly likely. In Darwin's day, they had no idea what was inside a cell. They didn't know about the hundreds of little tiny perfect parts that are all co-dependent and neccesary. If you look at all the different pieces, they almost resemble a machine. If you took any of those parts out, the machine would break and the cell would die. This doesn't fit with the idea that all that evolved, because evolution doesn't develope everything at once; it goes one gene at a time via mutation. You can't mutate non-life into life. Darwin's theory only explains creatures changing from on to another, based on mutation of DNA (though thats not something he mentions), and natural selection. I'm not trying to dissprove anything; evolution is a valid theory. However, so is intelligent design. It's not just a religous theory (thats creationism, btw), actual scientists have come to the conclusion that life forming from random chemicals (and I think I should mention that some of those chemicals that Darwin mentioned, like protien, don't exist outside life forms except as a relic of a dead life form. It's organic and therefore couldn't be present pre-life) is about as likely as a computer, not only fully functional but fully programmed appearing on it's own by accident. Discussing intelligent design doesn't encourage that you give up on pondering the issue; it introduces it so you can think about it and come to your own conclusions. It doesn't suggest that its the final thought and the issue is closed and you shouldn't bother thinking about it any more than the theory of evolution (which is, after all, a theory) does. It's impossible to really prove for a fact the origins of life, because that would require scientists somehow witnessing new life appear out of nowhere, which has yet to happen and probably won't. All I'm saying is that to completely ban the topic is very counter-productive to free thought and science.I dont know jsl you are kind of contradicting your self, so inteligent design seeks a scientific explination? How can it? Then what is its purpouse what is left to ponder and how is proving a higher power or other life form even possibal? Is it not a matter of faith?

princesskittypoo
12-23-2005, 08:51 PM
Intelligent design isn't creationism, btw. Creationism says God did it, id says "something". Some people believe the origin of life is extraterrestrial. I think it's definitely possible life began somewhere else besides earth.
ok if extraterrestrials created life then what created them? us?