Judge Rules Against Intelligent Design In Schools

[Milton Bradley]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/in...ign/index.html


HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- A Pennsylvania school district cannot teach in science classes a concept that says some aspects of science were created by a supernatural being, a federal judge has ruled.

In an opinion issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Jones ruled that teaching "intelligent design" would violate the Constitutional separation of church and state.

"We have concluded that it is not [science], and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," Jones writes in his 139-page opinion posted on the court's Web site. (Opinion, pdf)

[Matt W]

A victory for common sense!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4545822.stm

[Osborn F Enready]

Milton quoted:
"We have concluded that it is not [science], and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,"

I say:
Geez, as a non-religious person I sure am tired of the Christian attacks on my beliefs and our nations culture........

LOL .

I am sure the zealots in the nation will now mobilize another drive to start more fundraising and collections for another, bigger legal effort, to waste more of the taxpayers money and the courts time.

And to think they "think" they are the ones being marginallized, and singled out..... LOL

[Spence]

well thats good news, thanks for sharing that. =)

evolution is only a theroy, kind of like gravity.

[brien]

Quote by: Milton Bradley http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/in...ign/index.html HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- A Pennsylvania school district cannot teach in science classes a concept that says some aspects of science were created by a supernatural being, a federal judge has ruled. In an opinion issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Jones ruled that teaching "intelligent design" would violate the Constitutional separation of church and state. "We have concluded that it is not [science], and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," Jones writes in his 139-page opinion posted on the court's Web site. (Opinion, pdf)

Well such is life, or ID, as the case may be. Otherwise, perhaps we should ask if we can place the idea of the Greek Gods ruling from MT Olympus in the science class as well? Afterall, let's not be discriminatory here. We must be all inclusive to satisfy the pc police. I yi yi..

[Milton Bradley]

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


I think the conclusion contains a rather scathing attack on the proponents of ID, and made no attempt to hide it when they said ...

Quote by: fron the conclusion "The citizens of Dover were poorly served by members of the Board who voted for the ID policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who staunchly, and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time, and again lie to cover thier tracks, and disguise the real purpose behing the ID policy."

Not the type of behavior you would expect from a bunch of God fearing Christian souls. This proves, yet again, that the agenda is more important than the message, the examples, the convictions, the behavior, the policy, and every other thing they say on the surface to cover for their true agenda of prostletyzing your children.


Just like the Catholic School billboards around Toledo now where they show a series of backpacks, with one bearing the Catholic Cross, and it says something along the lines of "A Catholic School education, they'll carry it around for life".


Its so comforting for me to know that they want to fill your little backpack with as much phychological baggage, and religious guilt that they can stuff in there.


You go Judge Jones.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Spence well thats good news, thanks for sharing that. =) evolution is only a theroy, kind of like gravity.

Sure. And there exists just as much proof of evolution as there is of gravity.

The funny part is the vehement rejection of the ID opinion.

The school board wanted to mention that while they are teaching a theory whose basic tenets are very tenuous at best, bereft of clear examples, that some people happen to think that the creation of the earth and all life reflects a design that does not fit with the randomness inherent in evolution.

But any idea that does not toe the line of the indoctrination of evolution is heresy, befitting a swift rejection by the righteous followers.

Enjoy this “huge” victory.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I think the conclusion contains a rather scathing attack on the proponents of ID, and made no attempt to hide it when they said ...

Are you suggesting that the phrase "breathtaking inanity" in describing the board's decision perhaps lacked in subtlety?

[Feefer]

I have heard the recent debate over weather inteligent design should be added to schools. I belive so! I hav heard people say that it is a violation of the US Constitution. That it violates the seperation of church and state. But, if you truly look at why the added the seperation you will see. The seperation was part of our Constitution because we didnt want what had happened in other places and that was that the church had its fingers in everything.

[Feefer]

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.

Judge John Jones

Crap! The purpose is to show that there is more than one way of looking at life and that all though evolution is presneted in every school book, it is no more fact than big foot

[Matt W]

I belive so!

And the Judge believes not. So sorry, you lose.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Feefer But, if you truly look at why the added the seperation you will see. The seperation was part of our Constitution because we didnt want what had happened in other places and that was that the church had its fingers in everything.

Exactly right. Like in science, for instance.

.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: RickSp Are you suggesting that the phrase "breathtaking inanity" in describing the board's decision perhaps lacked in subtlety?

That, Sir, is my contention.


It truly is sad that a few bad apples have to ruin for everybody, but this is the lightning rod that deserves to be struck. Like I implied before, this is not the behavior of people who are genuine about their cause, or their beliefs

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Sonart Exactly right. Like in science, for instance. .

Many here like to point to the Constitution as the place to begin when deciding what actions can and can't be taken in this country.

There is ample reason to do so. But I admonish you to do so carefully. Please review the constitution. Find where the phrase "separation of church and state" resides in that document.

But don't waste too much time doing so.

The idea that a school system usurped from the people by the state can then assert that no mention of religion may occur in school because of this "separation" is absurd.

For those who bemoan the very idea of stating that there exits a belief that there may exist, if not another theory as to how the universe around us came to be, at least the possibility that it did not happen purely by chance, I state that there is no better moment to advance this possibility than in the same class where the school will assert the latest theory as fact.

After all, the stating that some believe that the universe around us suggests an order that cannot be explained by happenstance, that perhaps some power brought about the universe as we see with some design, is not exactly “promoting” an individual religion.

At best, it can be claimed that such a statement may promote the idea that some religion may hold a part of the answer not included without some intelligent design. Does that not embody the first amendment? It certainly does not cause “the establishment of a religion” nor does it “promote the free exercise thereof”.

[RickSp]

Yada, yada, yada, ape.

There was a fair trial in which advocates of ID on the school board were shown to be dishonest regarding their motives and the ID experts admitted on the stand that ID is no more scientific than astrology. You may lack the honesty or the wit to admit that ID is just another attempt to introduce fundamentalism to the schools. Fortunately, the judge, both honest and smart, shut them down.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp Yada, yada, yada, ape. There was a fair trial in which advocates of ID on the school board were shown to be dishonest regarding their motives and the ID experts admitted on the stand that ID is no more scientific than astrology. You may lack the honesty or the wit to admit that ID is just another attempt to introduce fundamentalism to the schools. Fortunately, the judge, both honest and smart, shut them down.

"attempt to introduce fundamentalism to the schools"?

Wow! You make the most impressive leaps of logic!

A mention of a non religion specific possibility is the first step to teaching fundamentalist beliefs? Which fundamentalist beliefs would that be?

Much like requiring a doctor to consult with the parent of an 11 year old girl, for whom he or she is legally responsible, before he can perform a medical procedure called an abortion, as must be done with every other non-life threatening medical procedure, is the foothold to overturn Roe v Wade.

Amazing.

[RickSp]

ID is a con game, nothing more or less. The school board members behind the policies were fundamentalists who repeatedly lied about their motives and intentions. Previously quoted from the ruling's conclusion:

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.

Amusingly Pat Robertson revealed the fundamental fundamentalist dishonesty when he called down curses on Dover for "abandoning God" when they voted out the pro-ID school board members. Yet you still claim that ID is "non religion specific." Sure. Nobody with half a brain would fall for that con.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp ID is a con game, nothing more or less. The school board members behind the policies were fundamentalists who repeatedly lied about their motives and intentions. Previously quoted from the ruling's conclusion: Amusingly Pat Robertson revealed the fundamental fundamentalist dishonesty when he called down curses on Dover for "abandoning God" when they voted out the pro-ID school board members. Yet you still claim that ID is "non religion specific." Sure. Nobody with half a brain would fall for that con.

You are, unsurprisingly, avoiding the greater debate by hiding behind a ridiculous scare tactic scenario.

Why should our schools, paid for by people of all faiths, including an absence and a denial of faiths, be kept from mentioning the idea that perhaps some “intelligence” had a part in the formation of the universe around us?

Why, because evil Christian conservatives will force our kids to pray the lords prayer!

What a closed mind

[RickSp]

There is nothing more comical than being accused of having a closed mind by one intent on forcing his religion on others. I think science should be taught in science class, whereas you want mythology included in the curriculum.

You obviously don't know what science is, but that is your problem.

[Matt W]

Well, end of the day, we won, they lost. Tough, as the Republicans said to the rest of the country after election day....