posted
You can actually find the 139 page ruling, in PDF form, on some of the news sites. Excellent reading, if you're getting tired of (un)sound bites.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just trying to see how they can say it's "unconstitutional", whether you agree with it or not.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seperation of church and state. Its a public school system, and intelligent design is based on religion.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the "Seperation of Church and State" in the US Bill of Rights is actually "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"... Does PA have a constitution that states no state-funded organization will have any religious content?
Considering how prevalent religion is in the world, I would kind of like the idea of a CLASS that dealt with religion. Not preaching, but that actually looked at the different religions, what they believed, how they interacted, etc. Heck, make it elective. The point here seemed to be that the school wanted to present a different view, not that they wanted to preach creationism to the class. Yes, creationism has it's roots in religion. But you could argue that Darwinism is a religion as well. Not trying to argue that point, just pointing it out.
It's kind of beside the point, I've heard several religions groups don't actually like the intelligent design theory either.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I don't believe "intelligent design" or creationism should be taught on the same level as evolution in a science class, isn't it only fair to consider that a lot of people do believe in some alternative to evolution. To me, not only does the first amendment say that government shouldn't establish a religion, but also that it shouldn't "disestablish" one either so effectively teaching kids in class that their religious beliefs are flatout wrong and unacceptable is as offensive as insisting that there's equal scientific evidence to support creationism.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"one either so effectively teaching kids in class that their religious beliefs are flatout wrong and unacceptable is as offensive as insisting that there's equal scientific evidence to support creationism."
Umm, from a scientific perspective, many people's religious beliefs ARE flat out wrong. And, if you are going to teach science accurately, that problem will be encountered. THe question becomes whether we teach science without religious bias, or with religious bias. If without, then we teach science as is, and let people handle any conflicts they have between what the scientific results are, and their religious beliefs.
I agree that it would be offensive to say in class "And this counters the ridiculous claims by religious group X." But if you can't handle a science teacher who says "The earth is about 4.5 billion years old," thats not the problem of the school.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
While there's a lack of evidence to support most of those religious beliefs, that isn't the same as those beliefs are flatout wrong. I know this may be a hard idea for non-religious people to grasp and I'm sure it sounds completely illogical to you, but if there is a god or gods then he or she or they could essentially do anything they wanted including creating fake evidence for evolution. Because this is completely unprovable on any level beyond blind faith I'm not advocating that this idea be taught in schools. I am advocating that instead of, "The earth is about 4.5 billion years old." how about, "Scientists currently believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old." I'm not even saying you should include the fact that people believe otherwise.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Listen, not trying to argue the point, and couldn't, because my views aren't completely defined, but you're taking it on faith that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. I kind of doubt you personally came up with the test to determine age, then performed the test, and know with absolute certainty that the test is valid. I'm not arguing that science is pointing us to believe what the age of the earth is, or that they are bad scientists, that it's a conspiracy, blah blah blah. Just sayin'
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by newfoundlogic: While I don't believe "intelligent design" or creationism should be taught on the same level as evolution in a science class, isn't it only fair to consider that a lot of people do believe in some alternative to evolution. To me, not only does the first amendment say that government shouldn't establish a religion, but also that it shouldn't "disestablish" one either so effectively teaching kids in class that their religious beliefs are flatout wrong and unacceptable is as offensive as insisting that there's equal scientific evidence to support creationism.
I don't believe just teaching evolution does teach kids their beliefs are wrong. It is teaching facts based on the best scientific evidence available. Its still up to the kids to interpret those facts.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, I can't get behind that proposition. If you follow the train of logic that you're using, then you are not teaching science, but some other philosophy.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It might be up to the kids to interpret the facts if when they put, "God created the world and everything on it in six days." on a test they didn't get the question wrong.
Since you aren't 4.5 billion years old yourself you can't actually be sure that that's how old the earth is. The only thing you can be sure of is that scientists basing their beliefs on the best evidence they have available believe the earth to be that old. Furthermore, considering that scientists have changed their minds and adjusted their number considerably throughout history, I think its reasonable to assume that children one hundred years from now will be learning a different number entirely.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know this may be a hard idea for non-religious people to grasp and I'm sure it sounds completely illogical to you, but if there is a god or gods then he or she or they could essentially do anything they wanted including creating fake evidence for evolution.
As a religous person, can you explain the logic in this possibility that doesn't make god a liar?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's my point. We're using the best methods we have now, but those methods are constantly refined. You're taking it on faith that this is the correct method. Science isn't an absolute. It's the current perception of the way things work, which is obviously fluid. It's not "philosophy", but it is a theory that you are working from.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Faith is constantly tested. But I have heard the theory that evidence of evolution was "planted" by Satan. I'd rather believe that God didn't feel like going into detail with sheep herders, myself, but I don't know the answers.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by newfoundlogic: It might be up to the kids to interpret the facts if when they put, "God created the world and everything on it in six days." on a test they didn't get the question wrong.
Since you aren't 4.5 billion years old yourself you can't actually be sure that that's how old the earth is. The only thing you can be sure of is that scientists basing their beliefs on the best evidence they have available believe the earth to be that old. Furthermore, considering that scientists have changed their minds and adjusted their number considerably throughout history, I think its reasonable to assume that children one hundred years from now will be learning a different number entirely.
Even if the 4.5 billion year mark is off, we do know that its older then 6,000 years. In fact it seem like scientists keep making the number older.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, it doesn't matter if God is a liar, only that's it possible. Second, in some religions the god or gods aren't perfect, but just because you don't lend them any credibility doesn't mean that people have any less right to believe in them and not have their beliefs infringed upon. Third, it could simply be a test of faith. What would consider someone who put Job what he went through and yet that story is still in the Bible. I'm not out to explain God's motives, because I don't know what they are any more than I know the answer the to the question, "Why do bad things happen to good people?"
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Intelligent Design in and of itself doesn't mention God at all. Just an intelligent life form, which is the problem some religious groups have. According to ID, it could have been an alien race as well. Or Buddha. Who, as we all know, is sitting with God and Colonel Sanders.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Bible is written by people, who could have misunderstood what they were told, embellished, forgot points, etc. Since it's divinly inspired, what I said may be blesphemy. But I always wondered if maybe something wasn't lost in translation. I don't know that if I received a vision, I would be properly able to decode it the way it was intended. I've heard scholars point out certain phrases which means "this is literal" and "this is not literal", but I'm certainly no expert.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by smitty: Well, Intelligent Design in and of itself doesn't mention God at all. Just an intelligent life form, which is the problem some religious groups have. According to ID, it could have been an alien race as well. Or Buddha. Who, as we all know, is sitting with God and Colonel Sanders.
I guess my problem with Intelligent design is the lack of any physical evidence. Its all, could have been this or that.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please don't conflate religious belief with scientific "belief." There is no comparison between the two, as they come from fundamentally different perspectives. Scientific acceptance of a particular scenario, under ANY situation, is based on what theory best fits the current evidence. Therefore, when a scientists says that he accepts the theory of evolution, he is saying that (a) the evidence, as determined empirically, strongly supports adaptation and change in species over time, and that (b) the evidence does not CONTRADICT evolution. Find significant evidence falsifying Darwin's theory and any good scientist will reject evolution as demonstrably false. Unfortunately for the ID movement, no such evidence against evolution exists. Indeed, 150 years of research have only provided a ridiculously detailed picture of how evolution can and does occur.
Anyway, back on topic: Go Judge Jones!
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
nfl, are you seriosuly putting 'it could be a test of faith' on the same level as 'the fossil record, genetics, and zoology show that'? Be glad nobody else does; I think you would not have been amused if your doctor had told you 'your cancer is a test of faith; just pray hard enough, and it will go away.'
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you are kind of missing my point here, adam. Sure, it could be a test of faith. Also, we could be living in the Matrix. But to equate that with treatments that actually work, well, it's a bit of a jump. Next time you turn on a light in your home, be sure to remind yourself that Maxwell's equations could just be a test of your faith.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I see. Perhaps I should have said, 'be glad nobody in charge of med-school curricula does', then.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When did I say that? All I am saying is that the fossil record, etc. is just what scientists believe and that people should be allowed to believe in what ever other theories they want to. People are also allowed to believe that praying is better than chemotherapy as a treatment for cancer, but a doctor shouldn't be allowed to take that approach in his or her treatment of a patient. In the same way a teacher shouldn't be allowed to say that a theory other than evolution is the correct theory for the creation of the world, but they should still allow for students to believe in something other than evolution. If that were somehow relevant to the treatment of diseases then the teacher should mention that evolution is the only acceptable theory to be used in treating those diseases, but since that isn't the case this is really a moot point.
On a side note, during my first hospitalization I happened to see a sort of informecial advocating that cancer patients not get chemotherapy and instead rely on eating certain foods. While I regard that as incredibly irresponsible I would also have no problem with a med school professor mentioning that chemo is just currently best option science has presented itself as long as its made clear that since it is best option its the only acceptable one to use when actually treating patients that aren't in a last ditch clinical trial. However, the very fact that these last ditch clinical trials exists just shows how an open mind is necessary if we're ever going to come up with better treatments for things like cancer.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I kind of doubt you personally came up with the test to determine age, then performed the test, and know with absolute certainty that the test is valid.
Actually while I haven't performed the tests personally, I absolutely have done the math on radioactive nucleotide decay curves that show the age is much older. And if those decay curves were wrong, we'd have a lot of nuclear reactors malfunctioning.
There are ways to get around it, such as saying the rates were different earlier (pre-flood) but now they are steady or there is the Creationist doctrine of "appearance of age" which means God made the world looking older than it is because he liked it that way. Appearance of age in geological layers can also be attributed to the Flood, but that doesn't change the radioactive dating.
I've seen some creationist attempts to show "flaws" in the radioactive dating systems, and they were pretty lame (in fact it was the lameness therof that pretty my much took me away from being a 7-day literalist myself)
There is also (though this is a bit out of vogue) the idea that between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 there was a large amount of time that took place, wherein Satan fell.
I also know several people who are fundamentalist theistic evolutionists, who generally fellowship among ardent creationists. They don't believe in a literal account of Genesis 1. However, they subscribe in general to the fundamentalist methods of interpreting the Bible. They do believe in literal miracles etc. So the acceptance of evolution is *not* necessarily a slippery slope to deny God. They believe God used evolution as a mechanism, and then instilled a soul at some point making the literal Adam and Eve. The key issue is that they believe it was *possible* for God to have made the earth in a literal 7 day frame, because of course he could have done so if he's God.
quote:...people should be allowed to believe in what ever other theories they want to.
But you are. But I really think that teachers in public schools should refrain from teaching out-and-out religious BS. Or any other BS, for that matter.
But, you know, there are plenty of stupid people in the school systems these days, on both sides of the desk. Once you've graduated from High School, you're more than welcome to pack grocery bags at the local Krogers or Piggly Wiggly, while my children go on to develop cures for cancer, or (better yet) own that Piggly Wiggly, and consistently "eat your lunch."
We need more stupid people in this country so that we can compete with the cheap, uneducated labor constantly provided in the third world. We can't be paying everybody $100,000 a year. But if we're only going to pay $100,000 to a handful of people, I'd rather it be my educated kids, and not some dumb-ass who thinks that the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old, and that faeries make the sun rise.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
But, you know, there are plenty of stupid people in the school systems these days, on both sides of the desk. Once you've graduated from High School, you're more than welcome to pack grocery bags at the local Krogers or Piggly Wiggly, while my children go on to develop cures for cancer, or (better yet) own that Piggly Wiggly, and consistently "eat your lunch."
We need more stupid people in this country so that we can compete with the cheap, uneducated labor constantly provided in the third world. We can't be paying everybody $100,000 a year. But if we're only going to pay $100,000 to a handful of people, I'd rather it be my educated kids, and not some dumb-ass who thinks that the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old, and that faeries make the sun rise. [/QB]
If this is your idea of an impassioned, rational argument, then I would say there is at least one more stupid person in this conversation than you realize.....
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're going to have to do a better job of explaining why believing in the Bible or some other alternate theory of creation is more likely to mean that you won't develop cures for cancer or own your own Piggly Wiggly. You're also going to have to explain why a school teacher allowing for the fact that other people believe in those theories harms the students education. If anything it should allow for students to keep a more open mind.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I've made all the impassioned, rational arguments before, as have a n umber of the other poseters on this particualr thread. It was a thread that wound up being about 13-15 pages long:
The end result of that thread was pretty much that all agreed on the following (including the proponents of ID)
1) ID is all about Creationism
1a) There is absolutely no scientific backing to any of the concepts presented in ID (what few concepts there are).
2) ID has nothing to do with "making sure that students understand the flaws inherent in science and the scientific method." It is, as mentioned before, all about introducing Creationism into the school system.
3) No one, on either side of the aisle, has the slightest problem with ID being taught, as religion or as myth, in an appropriate class (such as "History of Religion," "History of Natural Philosophy," "World Creatoin Myths," etc. No...wait...a few of the ID proponents were opposed to ID being mentioned in a non-science class, since it would imply that they had somehow "lost" the debate.
4) All attempts to get ID introduced into science classes turned out, eventually, to be disingenuous.
So, basically, since this whole issue has been asked and answered, I have to assume that anyone who still favors ID being taught in science class must, therefore, be pretty close-minded.
But, if you note, I never called anyone who supported ID "stupid." I merely said that there are plenty of stupid people, who choose to believe what they believe in the face of overwhelming ecvidence to the contrary. And if such a mind-set makes it impossible for them to learn anything of value, so be it. There's still an important place for them in our society.
I don't understand why you should take this so personally.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Read the ruling. Read what the school board (now mostly voted out) wanted represented in class.
I never said "Believing in the Bible" was a problem. But discrediting evolution in favor of creationism does not, for the most part, lead to good science (or good scientists). It's all about accepting a certain level of proof. The thresh-hold for creationists is substantially lower than that for evolutionists. Given a choice between the two, I'd take my cancer cures from a real scientist.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But, if you note, I never called anyone who supported ID "stupid." I merely said that there are plenty of stupid people, who choose to believe what they believe in the face of overwhelming ecvidence to the contrary. And if such a mind-set makes it impossible for them to learn anything of value, so be it. There's still an important place for them in our society.
I don't understand why you should take this so personally"
"We need more stupid people in this country so that we can compete with the cheap, uneducated labor constantly provided in the third world. We can't be paying everybody $100,000 a year. But if we're only going to pay $100,000 to a handful of people, I'd rather it be my educated kids, and not some dumb-ass who thinks that the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old, and that faeries make the sun rise. "
Why would I not take that personally? Unless I'm totally misreading that last quote (which is possible) you pretty much stated that anyone who believes in Christianity is a dumbass and doesn't deserve the same as those who don't believe in a higher power.
I'm all for not teaching intelligent design in science class, and really don't believe theological discussions belong there. I personally think just one sentence would cover the whole thing: "Some people do subscribe to the theory of a higher power being responsible for life, but we will not get into that." It worked for me in my classes.
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The founders were wise not to use the term separation of church and state; it can be achieved by banning religious expression. As it is here (at least according to the judge).
(I am not defending ID, which AFAIK is indefensible.)
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Will, just while I do have your attention a bit, could you please go look at that thread where you said I was resorted to a yo mama joke. I do feel bad about that thread and am hoping you are not left with any harsh feelings over a misunderstanding. I did write an explanation on that thread for you.
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I will admit to a certain bias against strict "Young Earthers." Please don't tell me that you think that someone who believes that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old, that God faked the fossil record, rigged Carbon dating, etc., etc. is someone you'd want to leave at home babysitting your kids. Or running your country.
Similarly, I think it's safe to say that everybody here would look askance at someone who was honestly promoting an earth-centric universe.
What else did I say?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't understand why you should take this so personally.
Funny thing is that I disagree with ID being taught as a psuedo-science and agree mostly with the ruling....
So it isn't that I take it personally, I just disliked your assumptions, and your attitude about it. You were condescending, arrogant, and went out of your way to be offensive...so I didn't think you would care if anyone got annoyed, as that seemed to be your purpose.
BTW, some of the most intelligent people in the world are religious, and still manage to own business and corporations and retain wealth....and many of them would agree with what ID teaches. I personally agree with it as it seems to bridge the gap between my faith and what my reason sees....
I just don't think it belongs in a science class.
So therefore your assessment of people who believe in ID is flawed, and is not scientifically provable, IMO. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think we should just hug, or shake hands, or something. My argument wasn't with you; it was with NFL's "It's OK for people to believe whatever it is that they want to believe."
First off, he's right. You can believe whatever you want to believe. But certain beliefs carry certain results. If your requirement for "proof" is so slim as to be able to accept ID as a valid replacement for evolution, then what other cons are you going to be subject to? Wars of agression based on invisible but promised Weapons of Mass Destruction? A national fiscal policy that states the more money we give to the rich, the more money we'll have for the poor, and the war, and the Alaskan bridges to nowhere?
To be honest, I actually worked with a bona fide "Young Earther" once. He ran the robotics lab at Grumman Aerospace. He was an OK guy, except for that one thing, and ran a clean lab. Probably made good money, too.
So, FWIW, accept my apology for being overly agressive. It was my way of roling my eyes as that poor, dead horse got beat all over again.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
