It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI/TECH: Judge Bans Teaching Intelligent Design in Dover PA

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
still don't see the the Christians are so gun hoe about this anyways

Most christians, I get the impression, aren't. I wouldn't say that the majority of the public support teaching ID in public school science classes anyway. Certainly that evolutionists who are christians aren't supporters of ID in general either.

but turning the schools into some sort of political battle ground.

Indeed, this is a problem beyond question of ID versus NS.
[uote]Origins biology isn't really a topic for most high school students anyway.
I agree. Things like string theory and abiogenetic theories are simply beyond the preparation that high school students, even advanced high school students, have. These topics sort of get 'honourable mention', from what I have seen.
Even 'regular, bland' quantum physics isn't taught very well in high schools, and thats a set of theories that were around before einstein.

The only legitimate way for ID to enter into any cirriculum is gradually and NOT by force

IF something close to a consensus in the scientific community was achieved, then I'd think that, regardless of public willingness, we'd have to have ID taught.


centurion1211
There is another place where they can learn about ID (if they want to) and it's been there all along. It's called a church ...

Indeed, considering the highly 'religious-ised' versions of ID that are being pushed in these efforts, I'm almost tempted to say that, in the interest of fair play, that the churches be required to teach darwininsm.
Shrines to finches, altars shapped like tortoises...



Rren
If not, Knox in February will present a lecture by Dr. Phillip Johnson

Just to be clear, Johnson has a juris doctorate, he's a lawyer, not a science researcher.
Who is this Dr. Roth? Not for nothing, but the fact that he's being promoted here by the Discovery Institute and will be plugging a book for Phil Johnson makes me suspicious.
Here is a webpage for him at Knox University
Dr. Martin Roth
Here is the University's release about the course.

Do any of the oponents of ID here have any issue with a course like this being taught?

In university, under the philosophy department? No. Infact, I'd encourage it. I'd probably require that students in it have taken an introductory biology course as a prerequisite tho, or somesuch.
This roth guy looks like a good prof, here's a description of another course he taught:

"Life, Death and Meaning," a course in English and philosophy taught by Martin Roth, assistant professor of philosophy. "Our goal is two-fold -- to be sensitive to interpretations of literature, and to extract and evaluate the philosophical arguments that are embodied in the texts -- Goethe, Kurt Vonnegut, Kate Chopin, C.S. Lewis, Arthur Schopenhauer and others."

Hell, I'd take that too.


howard roarke
Buckingham told Callahan that the book was “laced with Darwinism” and spoke in favor of purchasing a textbook that included a balance of creationism and evolution

It looks like the people pushing for ID in this case are pulling the bait and switch gambit. This is the strategy noted by Genie Scott of the NCSE. What happens, she's noted, in these school board cases is that there will be an inflitration (my word, not hers) of creationist-leaning people onto the boards, who will aggitate (again, my wording, not hers at all infact) for Intelligent Design and talk about fair play, scientific sceptisism of darwinism, and giving the students good information about a controversial target. Then when they've created a desire for this, and presented intelligent design as the way to accomplish it, they're able to get the board to, usually, agree to re-write the schools science curricula. Once that happens, the pretense of ID is dropped and the members start arguing for outright creationism. This is usually when the public and legal tide turns against them and they are defeated.
In Dover, that seemed to have changed to a degree, and they kept talking about intelligent design. Apparently it was there too being used and abused as a front for radical biblical creationism. This legal decision might be the end of the 'trojan school board' tact.
Which, in all honesty, would be a good thing, because these school boards have nothing to do with science at all, or even (what I think are) the attempts of ID proponents to examine the question scientifically. This might mean that politics will be less of a tool of the ID movement, which it clearly is under rhetoricians like Phil Johnson and the Wedge Strategy, and more rational discussion can occur.
Of course, rational dicsussion will probably not involve the public. Que sera sera.




posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Rren asks of a college course on ID:


Do any of the oponents of ID here have any issue with a course like this being taught? Where do you draw the line?


I draw the line at the college level. College students are adults and colleges are private schools. The individual pays to attend. The public isn’t paying for their education. They can take whatever classes the school offers.

I still don’t think it should be offered as a ‘science’, but as long as the government’s not paying for it I don’t really care what they call it.

My only beef about teaching ID is to children (K-12) in public government-supported schools.

And like centurion1211 said, there are perfectly appropriate places to teach ID to children. In church or at home.



Name me one church that teaches about biological complexity, the anthropic principal, information theory, irreducible complexity, cell theory...


Well, the church is behind this push in every case I’ve seen. If they want it taught to young children so badly, they need to get started. I don’t think all that heavy science is appropriate for 3rd graders anyway! Put it in the colleges where young adults can take it if they desire, don’t push the dogma on the children (with such impressionable minds). It’s the parents’ job to teach about faith and God, a deity or spirituality, if they desire.



I could say it's you who's trying to idoctrinate children with your dogma.


You could, but you’d be incorrect. Regardless of how many say that ID is a science or a scientific theory, those words mean something very specific in the world of science and ID doesn’t come close. It’s a hypothesis at best. Dogma is information without justification or proof that is believed without question.

Too many people look at evolution as the opposite of ID or Creationism and it’s not. Evolution is an actual scientific theory and is taught as such. ID and Creationism are ideas. When ID goes through the scientific methods that evolution has, and holds up as a testable theory, then it can be taught as such.



Indeed science by decree of law... excellent


Much preferable to religion by decree of law.

I commend this judge, especially after seeing all the information on the case. I don’t know how he could have come to a different conclusion.


[edit on 21-12-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
IF something close to a consensus in the scientific community was achieved, then I'd think that, regardless of public willingness, we'd have to have ID taught.

I think you know me well enough to know what I mean, Nygdan. That's my point, if the movement builds up momentum and support within the scientific community to the point of making noteworthy contributions it should be mentioned, othwerwise... too bad.


It looks like the people pushing for ID in this case are pulling the bait and switch gambit. This is the strategy noted by Genie Scott of the NCSE. What happens, she's noted, in these school board cases is that there will be an inflitration (my word, not hers) of creationist-leaning people onto the boards, who will aggitate (again, my wording, not hers at all infact) for Intelligent Design and talk about fair play, scientific sceptisism of darwinism, and giving the students good information about a controversial target. Then when they've created a desire for this, and presented intelligent design as the way to accomplish it, they're able to get the board to, usually, agree to re-write the schools science curricula. Once that happens, the pretense of ID is dropped and the members start arguing for outright creationism.


Eugenie Scott's opinion notwithstanding, is there any support for this 'creationist conspiracy' you've described above? Specifically, which school boards instituted an ID policy, rewrote their science cirricula, and then dropped the ID front for outright creationism? I don't know of this happening in association with the the ID movement as we now know it, which could speak to nothing more than my ignorance about this topic. When specifically has this happened. Obviously it's happened enough times to be referred to as the 'bait and switch gambit;' it makes it sounds like it's happened hundreds of times. When specifically, and where specifically did this occur? Otherwise, it just sounds like more NCSE propaganda.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by mattison0922]


apc

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   
ID is the result of reversing scientific methodology. A backwards interpretation of cause and effect. The ID train of thought leads one to conclude that there is air so that we may breathe. While in reality, we simply breathe because there is air. Starting with a conclusion and then constructing the evidence is patently not science.

I pray this case sets precedent for those to come.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
As soon as Sandra Day O'Connors' spot is filled, this ruling will be overturned.


That is highly doubtful.

The decision will not be appealed.

Last November, the good people of the Dover school district booted out 8 of the 9 republican school board members who started this whole fiasco. 8 Democrats were elected instead. The 9th member’s seat wasn’t up for reelection, so he/she was spared.

The main campaign platform of the victors: “Let’s quit wasting tax money on this nonsense.”


Given the notoriety of this case, the ID proponents w ill have to find a new bunch of patsies somewhere else to try this.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   
It just seems pathetic to be so insecure about your biological superiority, to a group of feces-flinging, rouge-buttocked monkeys, that you have to make up fairy tales. Like we came from Adam and Eve, and then cover stories for Adam and Eve like, intelligent design. Yeah, leaving the Earth in the hands of two naked teenagers. That's a real intelligent design.

I'm sorry, folks, but it may very well may be that life is just a series of random events. And that there is no... master plan. But enough about Iraq. Let me instead restate my thesis. There aren't necessarily two sides to every issue. If there were, the Republicans would have an opposition party.

And an opposition party would point out that even though there's a debate, in schools, and government, about this, there is no debate among scientists. Evolution... is supported by the entire scientific community. Intelligent design is supported by guys downloading bootlegged copies of "The Dukes of Hazzard" on Limewire.

And the reason there is no real debate, is that intelligent design isn't real science. It's the equivalent of saying that the thermos keeps hot things hot and cold things cold, because it's a god. It's so willfully ignorant you might as well worship the U.S. Mail. It came again! Praise, Jesus!

No, stupidity isn't a form of knowing things. Thunder is high pressure air meeting low pressure air. It's not God bowling. Babies come from storks is not a competing school of thought... in medical school. We shouldn't teach both. The media shouldn't equate both.

If Thomas Jefferson knew we were blurring the line this much between church and state, he would turn over in his slave. Now as for me, I believe in evolution and intelligent design. I think God designed us in his image, but I also think God is a monkey!


[edit on 21-12-2005 by Dr Isaac Yankem DDS]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   
[

but turning the schools into some sort of political battle ground.


Indeed, this is a problem beyond question of ID versus NS.


I agree and have said numerous times that the politics or pushing ID on the schools prematurely is BS. I have also said, numerous times, that ID is college level. This was the Dover school board who did this, and not the ID community as a conspiracy to get creationism in the schools... the debate continues and if anything maybe this gets the IDers back on the ball and doing more research. Just to be clear i wouldn't be chearing had the verdict gone the other way either. I think scientists need to decide what is and is not science. I stand by my statement that science by legal decree is rediculous. And somebody standing a strawman against that: yeah religion by legal decree is better, is just as rediculous.




centurion1211
There is another place where they can learn about ID (if they want to) and it's been there all along. It's called a church ...


Indeed, considering the highly 'religious-ised' versions of ID that are being pushed in these efforts, I'm almost tempted to say that, in the interest of fair play, that the churches be required to teach darwininsm.
Shrines to finches, altars shapped like tortoises...


This is not something that you can discuss and learn about in church. The debate takes place in biology, cosmology, physics and mathematics. That debate is still not settled. But yes a highly 'religious-ised' version will not stand up to scientific scrutiny... the process seems to have worked here. Remember folks the (former) Dover school board is not the ID community. This was struck down (from what i can tell) because it was a strategy to get creationism or "religious-ised ID" into the schools. Now i don't follow the politics enough to know whether or not this is true, the judge certainly thought so, i've yet to read the transcripts. If true then this should have been 'struck down' and i have no issue with that. But a judge realizing (again if true) that the Dover school board had some sinister ulterior motives to introducing ID into their public schools has nothing to do with whether real ID is scientific or not.



Do any of the oponents of ID here have any issue with a course like this being taught?


In university, under the philosophy department? No. Infact, I'd encourage it. I'd probably require that students in it have taken an introductory biology course as a prerequisite tho, or somesuch.


Well atleast we've found something to agree on. If it's truley scientific then i would expect that eventually the concensus opinion will show that. I'm a creationist, i don't want or think it should be taught in public schools. I still maintain that ID is not creationism, whether its science or theology is still open for debate. My point: this judge's opinion has no bearing on that debate. Except maybe for getting some of the ID advocates off this political crap and back to the real issues, i hope anyway.




This legal decision might be the end of the 'trojan school board' tact.
Which, in all honesty, would be a good thing, because these school boards have nothing to do with science at all, or even (what I think are) the attempts of ID proponents to examine the question scientifically.


Exactly. Whether or not this school board was a "trojan school board" (i don't know) is irrelevant to the science issues at hand. Hopefully this will get the participants to focus on the real issues and leave this high school nonsense alone.



This might mean that politics will be less of a tool of the ID movement, which it clearly is under rhetoricians like Phil Johnson and the Wedge Strategy, and more rational discussion can occur.
Of course, rational dicsussion will probably not involve the public. Que sera sera.


One can only hope. We will see i guess. The 'blogosphere' is all over it, i've seen some good stuff on arn and telic thoughts. Most people would be surprised to find that the "ID community" for the most part didn't like or agree with the "wedge" or specifically what was going on in Dover. This was a distraction and possily dangerous to ID legitimacy... conspriacy theories abound now. Whether or not they have any bearing on the actual debate is being lost in the noise now imo.

Que sera sera, indeed. I guess the Discovery Institue can take this judge of the Christmas card list eh.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
You might want to brush up on microbial evolution, and the use of evolutionary principles in drug design.

Neither of these examples stands in opposition to ID.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
This was the Dover school board who did this, and not the ID community as a conspiracy to get creationism in the schools.

Not according to the findings of the judge.





But a judge realizing (again if true) that the Dover school board had some sinister ulterior motives to introducing ID into their public schools has nothing to do with whether real ID is scientific or not.


Read the decision. The judge found that ID is not a form of science as science is currently defined.



I still maintain that ID is not creationism, whether its science or theology is still open for debate. My point: this judge's opinion has no bearing on that debate.


It has everything to do with that debate. It is illegal to teach creationism in public schools.

Read me

It isn’t that bad of a read.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Isaac Yankem DDS
And the reason there is no real debate, is that intelligent design isn't real science.


"Dr." you are cordially invited to join our ongoing topics re: the scientific status of ID here or here.

My only request is that you read the threads in their entirety prior to posting... hope to see you... but I'm not holding my breath.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   
ID is not science... it is not even theory... but an "ideal" of a creator...
A creator that is responsible for everything that you dont have to understand to beleive.

and evolution is not the "theory" that ID proponants state
Evolution is listed as a "theory", but overall, it is accepted as a fact by science. The 'theory' label comes from the small finishing touches that haven't been refined yet, such as: was it 4.5 or 5 billion years ago? Scientific Fact dictates that it was at least 4 billion years ago...

The main problem is that people that accept ID dont want to try to understand evolution. Accepting ID usually means that you dont want to understand the science, due to its complexity... and that is fine, but dont try to push your chosen ignorance on us...

If you do, then we might very well revert to teaching other false science of:
the earth being the center of the universe /solar system
the earth is only 7000 years old
the earth is FLAT!
all these ideals were held most high at one time... and what is amazing, is that there are still a significant number of people that beleive these (some polls state 50% of americans). Should these ignorant people get to pick what quacky science your kids get taught?

And BTW, I am Christian, and my beliefs are not challenged by evolution any more than the science facts, that show a minimum age of the universe at 4 billion years. So what if some of our ignorant ancestors wrote the wrong number in a sacred book... they were only human, and capable of error...



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Did not the teachers in Dover simply want to state that there are other theories and to not teach Intelligent Design?

At any rate, despite the merits or non-merits of Intelligent Design aside, it is my opinion that Judge Jones' decision is just another example of judicial activism.







seekerof

[edit on 21-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 07:26 PM
link   
how is it judicial activism. the fact that eight of the nine school board members were voted out of office kind of tells me that the majority of the population in Dover did not want it in the public schools, for whatever reason. if anything, it's legislative activism on the part of the school board!! what happened to the majority rule the neo-conservatives are always crying about.....does it go out the window the minute they find out that they aren't the majority?



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   
To be honest with everyone, we're on a conspiracy board that includes discussions about extraterrestrial life and UFO's. There are many here that supports the theories of alien life and the vehicles used to bring them here.

Opponents of the Intelligent Design "theory" would more than likely support the theories of civilizations on other worlds. Most supporters of ID, IMHO, would say that alien life doesn't exist (with the exception of God). I, on the other hand, believe that all life, from the lowly microbial forms of life to the complexities of the human being, was designed and created by an intelligence that's far more comlex and intelligent than we can comprehend. Before his death, Charles Darwin recanted everything he'd said of evolution. He just simply knew that it was impossible for a thinking being capable of building cities and keeping a written history of themselves to evolve from a "germ" in the short time-span that the Earth has existed.

Myself, I don't buy into the theory that we came from a "germ" and I believe in extraterrestrial/interdimensional beings.

In the modern atmosphere of theories upon theories about the origins of life and the universe, why can't we teach ID in a theoretical form. After all, we still have very little understanding about what makes us tick. Since science can't prove either one, both should be taught and left up to the individual to make their own choice. After all, this is a supposedly "pro-choice" society, isn't it?

I suppose my questions are these: Why are opponents of Intelligent Design so adament on it not being taught in school, even if all religious implications are removed? Is it the fear of another theory, such as ID, having the potential to blow the evolutional theory out of the water?





[edit on 21/12/05 by Intelearthling]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by IntelearthlingTo be honest with everyone, we're on a conspiracy board that includes discussions about extraterrestrial life and UFO's. There are many here that supports the theories of alien life and the vehicles used to bring them here.


The concepts of which you speak (ETs etc.) are not scientific theories. The word theory (in the scientific sense) has a very specific meaning. Scientific Theory

Intelligent Design is not a theory, in the scientific sense. Evolution is. That's why it can be taught in schools as science. As a theory.

When a person says. "I have a theory that dogs can understand people." this is a common, non-scientific use of the word 'theory', meaning speculation.



I suppose my questions are these: Why are opponents of Intelligent Design so adament on it not being taught in school, even if all religious implications are removed?


I don't 'oppose' Intelligent Design. I'm agnostic about our arrival here, so I don't really care one way or the other about it. But how on earth can you teach ID without any religious implications? The implication of a creator is religious in nature. Spirituality or supernatural teachings are great, just not in a school.

I'm really curious how you think ID can be taught without the assumption of a creator.



Is it the fear of another theory, such as ID, having the potential to blow the evolutional theory out of the water?


Not for me. Again, ID is not a theory. I just don't want to pay to have religion taught to the kids. It's a clear violation of the first amendment.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:48 PM
link   
We all know that ID can not be teach as a scientific theory, but can then be taught as a philosophy?

I don't get it, I believe in science but I also believe in intelligent beings somewhere that perhaps manipulated us into becoming and intelligent species.

But I also do not believe in creationism and that we are so special because a higher intelligent being decided that we most be like him or it.

So can ID be teach as a philosophy?

[edit on 21-12-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
So can ID be teach as a philosophy?


I don't see why not. But not in public schools. In private schools or colleges, I don't have a problem with it at all.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Again, ID is not a theory. I just don't want to pay to have religion taught to the kids. It's a clear violation of the first amendment.


I beg to differ BH. Take out the religious aspects of ID and you'll have the theory that we were created by EBE's. Besides, Intelligent Design is very much a scientific theory IMO.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
and support within the scientific community to the point of making noteworthy contributions it should be mentioned, othwerwise... too bad.

Yes, we are in agreement there.


Eugenie Scott's opinion notwithstanding, is there any support for this 'creationist conspiracy' you've described above?

The Wedge Document outlines the Discovery Institute's plans pretty clearly. Scott has also been following these movements for a while and her opinion on the matter deserves some weight.


Specifically, which school boards instituted an ID policy, rewrote their science cirricula, and then dropped the ID front for outright creationism?

I'm not saying that they wrote new standards and then re-wrote them, but that the front talk is about Intelligent Design as a scientific theory, and then we start hearing about creationism, god, anti-evolutionism, but not "Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design" or actual curriculae that work through intelligent design.
I mean, think about what you'd like to write up as coursework for studying intelligent design, and compare it to what we've actually seen come out of these boards and lawsuits, like:


In Grantsburg, Wisconsin, the school board about a year ago cited that other scientific ideas about evolution should be taught. And then approved creationism in their classes.
www.ncseweb.org...

In East Port County in Indianna, school officials cited wanting to teach alternate theories of evolution in the schools (however this is over textbooks rather than the curricula alone), but then ended up professing their faith in literal biblical creationism and wanting it taught in the schools.
www.thetimesonline.com...

Here we see Blount County Tennesse talking about strict "saecular" ID (thats the guys usage, makes sense for a discussion anyways). Blount County schools had just a few years ago had a similar run in with the subject, told here (NCSE)

Here we see that ID advocates, not necessarily the DI tho, were forming the Topeka Standards that, rather than promote ID as a science, try to tear down and impunge Evolution, which is of the 'If evolution is false, creationism is right' branch of creationism.


Here's one to watch in Utah. The senators proposal is apparently being undisclosed until January 14th, and he seems to be leaning towards Intelligent Design. Lets see what the proposal actually states.

Here we also see something starting in Illinois, where some politicians met with Carl Baugh, of all people, and other creationists, then started sending out polls asking voters about how they feel about Intelligent Design. Do you really think that these guys are thinking about the nylonase bug or shanon information theory? Heck, they even " wanted to hear Baugh's thoughts on how to create the legislation."

Even this recent Debacle in Dover seems to show that the public face was ID and 'teach the controversy', but the background was biblical creationists. Heck, one of the 'pro' voters on the board didn't even know what ID was, she was told that it was scientific by two other members.


t know of this happening in association with the the ID movement as we now know it, which could speak to nothing more than my ignorance about this topic.

The ARN, specifically David DeWolf and Steve Meyer, published this book,
Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula:A Legal Guidebook



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   
ALSO,

lets all try to keep this focused on the matters directly at hand, rather than try to resolve the 'status' of ID in this thread. There are plently of excellent threads about that, links to them are sprinkled throughout this thread, please continue the ongoing discussions about the evidence for ID, what makes a science scientific, etc, there.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join