USA federal judge strikes down Intelligent Design

[Cowperson]

Long awaited ruling on Intelligent Design in Pennsylvania arrived today:

HARRISBURG, Pa. -- "Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.

The Dover Area School Board violated the Constitution when it ordered that its biology curriculum must include "intelligent design," the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled Tuesday.

The school board policy, adopted in October 2004, was believed to have been the first of its kind in the nation.

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy," Jones wrote. "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."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122000532.html

Cowperson

[troutman]

Huzzah! Are you paying attention Kansas?

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/2....ap/index.html

Earlier this month, a federal appeals court in Georgia heard arguments over whether evolution disclaimer stickers placed in a school system's biology textbooks were unconstitutional. A federal judge in January ordered Cobb County school officials, in suburban Atlanta, to immediately remove the stickers, which called evolution a theory, not a fact.
In November, state education officials in Kansas adopted new classroom science standards that call the theory of evolution into question.

[Cheese]

Or is it...Intelligent Judge bans teaching Intelligence in Science classes?

Science does not equal Intelligent design

In a far-reaching decision, Judge John E. Jones 3d concluded that intelligent design is not science. "In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science," Jones wrote. "We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

[Cowperson]

You're a big fata head

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=19144

Cowperson

[FireFly]

You'll have to forgive his excitement over such a ground-breaking ruling.

[Cheese]

poop!

[JimmytheT]

Good on these judges (most of whom I am sure hold some religious beliefs) for upholding the US Constitution.

I love how people rely on their own ignorance of the word 'theory'. A theory is much different from a hypothesis. When the average person (most are scientifically illiterate) hears 'theory' they think of it in terms of a hypothesis.

The modern theory of evolution is about as strong a scientific notion as the modern theory of gravity.

[Resolute 14]

Bit of a case of wanting so desperately to post that ridiculous cheap shot that you couldnt even see the very obviously titled thread that already existed, eh?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Bit of a case of wanting so desperately to post that ridiculous cheap shot that you couldnt even see the very obviously titled thread that already existed, eh?

well I think the Judge is the one who took the shot!

[arsenal]

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

And since when did "Intelligent Design" become "fact" ? All well and good if want to call Evolution a theory, but my understand is that there is more fact to support Evolution than there is to support "Intelligent Design".

[troutman]

The full Judgment:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmiller.pdf

An interesting read; the Plaintiffs are completely vindicated, and the School Board is harshly criticized.

The Court found that:

"ID does not satisfy the ground rules of science".

The ID textbook Pandas "distorts and misrepresents evidence in the fossil record . . .contains outdated concepts and badly flawed science . . . complete abscence of peer reviewed publications supporting the theory".

"ID is not science and cannot be adjudged as valid".

"Defendants consciously chose . . . to advance religion".

"Striking ignorance concerning the concept of ID amongst Board members".

"disregarding the teachers' views"

"compelling testimony as to the harm caused by the Board's ID policy"

"repititious, untruthful testimony"

"any asserted secular purposes by the Board are a sham and merely secondary to a religious objective"

"flagrant and insulting falsehoods to the court"

[FlamesAddiction]

ID is not science!?

Welcome to the 19th century folks!

[troutman]

http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr...rticle&id=7725

Sweeping Decision Should Bring Latest Creationist Crusade To A Halt, Church-State Watchdog Group Says

Today’s federal court decision against the teaching of “intelligent design” in Dover, Pa., is a significant blow to Religious Right-led efforts to sneak fundamentalist dogma into public schools under the guise of science, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/13449670.htm

"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," Jones said in a 139-page decision. "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."
Jones said those who disagree with the decision - the first-ever federal trial on the teaching of intelligent design - "will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge." But the judge, a Republican appointed to the to the bench by President Bush, said "this is manifestly not an activist Court."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179256,00.html

The issue had stoked emotions within the divided Dover community, and eight school board members were turned out in a Nov. 8 election. They were replaced by opponents of the policy, who said they would not appeal the decision.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by JimmytheT

Good on these judges (most of whom I am sure hold some religious beliefs) for upholding the US Constitution.

I love how people rely on their own ignorance of the word 'theory'. A theory is much different from a hypothesis. When the average person (most are scientifically illiterate) hears 'theory' they think of it in terms of a hypothesis.

The modern theory of evolution is about as strong a scientific notion as the modern theory of gravity.

You know what's funny? When people start tossing the term theory around they forget that a "theory" is continually being researched and attempted to be proven so it becomes a law. No where is "intelligent design" being reserached or attempted to be "proven". Its the last great con job left on the planet and they're playing it out as long as they can.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

You know what's funny? When people start tossing the term theory around they forget that a "theory" is continually being researched and attempted to be proven so it becomes a law. No where is "intelligent design" being reserached or attempted to be "proven". Its the last great con job left on the planet and they're playing it out as long as they can.

"Even" if ID were true, it still does not belong in a science class.

Take physcology or some theology course if you want to learn about it.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Was anyone watching "Debate" on HDNet last night? The topic was Intelligenet Design V. Evolution. Least to say, it was a whitewash! The guy debating FOR Evolution was a Minister (a man of the cloth) and the guy arguing for Intelligent Design was a guy from some Civil Liberty group. Man, it was like leading a lamb to the slaughter. The minister was all over this guy and pounding him to a pulp. He kept throwing the "proof" angle in the guy's face and there was nothing he could say about it. When the Liberty fella tried to turn that around the minister trotted out the fossil record and started talking biology, chemistry, astronomy, etc. and just buried the dufus. What killed the Liberty fellow was when the minister said he had no problem with ID being taught in school, that is just shouldn't be in science class, that it should be in a theology class. Completely nuked the poor guy and his plan of attack. It was quite embarassing to see someone from the ID side so uninformed and prepared. I guess he must have been from Kansas!

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Was anyone watching "Debate" on HDNet last night? The topic was Intelligenet Design V. Creationism. Least to say, it was a whitewash! The guy debating FOR Creationism was a Minister (a man of the cloth) and the guy arguing for Intelligent Design was a guy from some Civil Liberty group. Man, it was like leading a lamb to the slaughter. The minister was all over this guy and pounding him to a pulp. He kept throwing the "proof" angle in the guy's face and there was nothing he could say about it. When the Liberty fella tried to turn that around the minister trotted out the fossil record and started talking biology, chemistry, astronomy, etc. and just buried the dufus. What killed the Liberty fellow was when the minister said he had no problem with ID being taught in school, that is just shouldn't be in science class, that it should be in a theology class. Completely nuked the poor guy and his plan of attack. It was quite embarassing to see someone from the ID side so uninformed and prepared. I guess he must have been from Kansas!

Was the debate between ID and Creationism (really the same thing)?

Richard Dawkins would crush both of them.

[Cheese]

The problem Lanny is that they probably hand picked the opponents to suit the network. As troutman said Mr Dawkins would kill them...as would many others who are at least schooled in the art of discussion.

[Cowperson]

Nice opinion piece on this in the Washington Post today

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122001715.html

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by troutman

Was the debate between ID and Creationism (really the same thing)?

Richard Dawkins would crush both of them.

My bad. Was thinking evolution and typed creationism... twice!