Court rejects 'intelligent design' in class

[daisy]

See, you are assuming that I want the Bible taught. I don't want someone to teach in a public school, the bible, the story of the 7 days of creation. I'm not suggesting that. I just hate to see that only ONE of these two NON-PROVEN theories is taught. Don't even mention God, Don't say "hey, this is in the Bible." Simply state, Other scientists (yes, there are scientists researching it) have theorized that this...

And let us NOT turn this into a debate on which is true, or even if the Bible is true. Remove that from it, accept that this is TWO THEORIES (evolution is NOT a proven theory, nor is Intelligent design, hence they are both still THEORIES). And Science by definition is the study, observation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena (occurances).

When the day comes (which we both know it will not) that my church is funded by your tax dollars (or mine for that matter), I would expect you could walk into it and hear about those things you mention. Meanwhile, it is funded by its parishoners, those persons with a choice to whether or not they'll support it, not by anyone who doesn't believe in or wish to partake in its activities.

So given your explanation...I expect I should be able to walk into a public school, which my tax dollars pay for, and hear about Intelligent Design.

(**Ponytail, please know I'm not the type to get into a heated debate and take things personally, so I'm continuing this discussion hoping you feel the same, just discussing personal preference, no hard feelings...)

 

[vraiblonde]

When the day comes (which we both know it will not) that my church is funded by your tax dollars

Any takers?

 

[bcp]

Actually, it doesn't when you consider all the different religions there are

Actually, considering that almost all the religions have the same stories and individuals it really is rather interesting.
different cultures saw the same thing in a different way.

Science class is for science. Religion is not a science, so no religion in science class. Simple.

I dont disagree with you here.
However, I do have to question why the closed door policy when it comes to religion in the schools. Kids cant even sing christmas songs anymore in chorus for fear of offending someone, or making it look like the school endorses religion.

Something that is feared as much as religion must be real,, nobody is that afraid of a myth.

 

[gumbo]

Behaviorism is what should be taught.
Where we come from is not important!
Where we are going is not important!
They are both nothing more than theory's.
How we interact with one another is important.

My question is. If we eliminate God, where would our conscience come from?

 

[BuddyLee]

Behaviorism is what should be taught.
Where we come from is not important!
Where we are going is not important!
They are both nothing more than theory's.
How we interact with one another is important.

You sound like a Buddhist.

 

[vraiblonde]

Kids cant even sing christmas songs anymore in chorus for fear of offending someone

Those people are just freaks.

Why not let the community decide? Put it on a referendum and let the people speak. Maybe not even on a county-wide basis, but per school. Shoot, if they sent home a letter asking if I wanted my kids to be informed about creationism, I'd say sure. :shrug: All opinions should be welcome and all views taken into account. Learning about intelligent design doesn't hurt people.

 

[vraiblonde]

My question is. If we eliminate God, where would our conscience come from?

Well, I don't believe in God, but I have a conscience. One that came from my grandfather, who is now being a senile twit.

I'm going to go do something bad to spite him.

 

[gumbo]

You sound like a Buddhist.

Yes grass hopper I study all beliefs and read much philosophy.













And you know what?














It all comes down to black or white

 

[BuddyLee]

Yes grass hopper I study all beliefs and read much philosophy.













And you know what?














It all comes down to black or white

If that's the case then you would have proven your point with a superb example.

 

[gumbo]

Well, I don't believe in God, but I have a conscience. One that came from my grandfather, who is now being a senile twit.

I'm going to go do something bad to spite him.

It was taught to you. So who taught him ?
Somewhere down the line, it came from the fear of God.

 

[gumbo]

If that's the case then you would have proven your point with a superb example.

You can't teach a blind man the color purple.

 

[BuddyLee]

You can't teach a blind man the color purple.

Only to whom thinks the man is blind can he assume that his failed logic leads him to believe that there is no color purple to this supposed blind man.

 

[vraiblonde]

It was taught to you. So who taught him ?
Somewhere down the line, it came from the fear of God.

...

Okay, I'll go for that

 

[kom526]

Creationism is what I was taught growing up catholic but evolution is far more logical an explanation (for me) than "making man from dust". In fact, I am ok knowing that my DNA is very similar to that of the gorilla. The opposable thumb is the only thing that keeps from swinging from the trees, (and we don't fling poo). I am inclined to agree with the others that feel that ID should not be taught as a science, but ALL theories concerning life as we know it should be taught while allowing the student to decide for themselves what they want to believe.

 

[SamSpade]

I wish the whole English-speaking world would once and for all learn what a "theory" is.

It is NOT "unsubstantiated conjecture". You may claim that you have a 'theory' that crop circles are made by aliens - but I strongly believe you don't have a shred of evidence, proof, experimentation or anything to put behind it. What you MEAN to say is, it's your 'conjecture'. You think it's true.

Now this is because "theory" is used in everyday language interchangeably with 'hypothesis', 'assumption' and 'conjecture'. To the everyday person, it means the same thing. Thus, when someone refers to the theory of evolution - even if you support it - there's a tendency to shrug and say, yeah but it's JUST a theory.

Newsflash - *Gravity* is a "theory". If you think it's probably a conjecture, please test it by jumping out of a plane without a parachute. Tell me how it works out.

Relativity is a "theory". So is cell theory. Kinetic theory of gases. Atomic theory. Tell me atomic theory is "just a theory", and I'll point you to Hiroshima.

We have this common misperception that theory one day rises to the certainty of "fact". Nonsense. "Facts" are just as likely to be mistaken or slightly in error as theory. In actuality, they're often LESS supported than some theory. Theories have at least been supported by analysis, experimentation, scrutiny and observation. In truth, they are often on a par with what we call "fact". We correct facts as often as we refine theories.

Which brings me to the discussion.

First, intelligent design really is just creationism repackaged with a new label. All suggestion that the intelligence behind it being anything other than a divine power is just a smokescreen. Absolutely no one who wants it put into schools wants kids to learn that intelligent aliens created mankind.

Which means, we've been down this road before. It's religion very thinly disguised as science. Unlike phlogiston "theory" - or ether "theory" - its proponents are highly resistant to their theory being tossed aside once it's been discredited. But that's the nature of science. You throw away your theories when they don't stand up to scrutiny, observation, experimentation or logical analysis. This is the litmus test under which ID fails - its supporters NEVER wish to acknowledge it is false - they may say they would - but they believe it by faith, not by scientific support.

This is not to say that faith is inferior. But it is not science.

THAT BEING SAID - I have no objection to ID being taught in schools.

Teach it in social studies class.

I learned all about Buddha - and Mithra - and the three main deities of Hinduism - in social studies. We learned about the Reformation in social studies. I read about Martin Luther and Calvin in social studies. I learned about Confucianism, Jainism, animism, Taoism in social studies. And if you're going to argue ID - an argument really grounded in faith rather than science - it gets equal billing with other religious teaching. If it's objectivity we want, it goes along with everything else. THAT is *fair*.

 

[slotted]

Which brings me to the discussion.

First, intelligent design really is just creationism repackaged with a new label. All suggestion that the intelligence behind it being anything other than a divine power is just a smokescreen. Absolutely no one who wants it put into schools wants kids to learn that intelligent aliens created mankind.

Which means, we've been down this road before. It's religion very thinly disguised as science. Unlike phlogiston "theory" - or ether "theory" - its proponents are highly resistant to their theory being tossed aside once it's been discredited. But that's the nature of science. You throw away your theories when they don't stand up to scrutiny, observation, experimentation or logical analysis. This is the litmus test under which ID fails - its supporters NEVER wish to acknowledge it is false - they may say they would - but they believe it by faith, not by scientific support.

This is not to say that faith is inferior. But it is not science.

THAT BEING SAID - I have no objection to ID being taught in schools.

Teach it in social studies class.

I learned all about Buddha - and Mithra - and the three main deities of Hinduism - in social studies. We learned about the Reformation in social studies. I read about Martin Luther and Calvin in social studies. I learned about Confucianism, Jainism, animism, Taoism in social studies. And if you're going to argue ID - an argument really grounded in faith rather than science - it gets equal billing with other religious teaching. If it's objectivity we want, it goes along with everything else. THAT is *fair*.

Sam Spade, you have a way with words. I wanted to say something along the same line, but could not have done what you just did.

science has been revised much more than religion.
I would think that religion has a better track record.

Religion does have a better track record. A track record of hanging on to beliefs that have long since been shown to have no evidence supporting it's views.

Why has science been revised? I'm sure you already know the answer to that one. It's claims are tested and scrutinized. If there is no evidence to support it's claims, then it is tossed aside.

 

[Bustem' Down]

I wish the whole English-speaking world would once and for all learn what a "theory" is.

It is NOT "unsubstantiated conjecture". You may claim that you have a 'theory' that crop circles are made by aliens - but I strongly believe you don't have a shred of evidence, proof, experimentation or anything to put behind it. What you MEAN to say is, it's your 'conjecture'. You think it's true.

Now this is because "theory" is used in everyday language interchangeably with 'hypothesis', 'assumption' and 'conjecture'. To the everyday person, it means the same thing. Thus, when someone refers to the theory of evolution - even if you support it - there's a tendency to shrug and say, yeah but it's JUST a theory.

Newsflash - *Gravity* is a "theory". If you think it's probably a conjecture, please test it by jumping out of a plane without a parachute. Tell me how it works out.

Relativity is a "theory". So is cell theory. Kinetic theory of gases. Atomic theory. Tell me atomic theory is "just a theory", and I'll point you to Hiroshima.

We have this common misperception that theory one day rises to the certainty of "fact". Nonsense. "Facts" are just as likely to be mistaken or slightly in error as theory. In actuality, they're often LESS supported than some theory. Theories have at least been supported by analysis, experimentation, scrutiny and observation. In truth, they are often on a par with what we call "fact". We correct facts as often as we refine theories.

Which brings me to the discussion.

First, intelligent design really is just creationism repackaged with a new label. All suggestion that the intelligence behind it being anything other than a divine power is just a smokescreen. Absolutely no one who wants it put into schools wants kids to learn that intelligent aliens created mankind.

Which means, we've been down this road before. It's religion very thinly disguised as science. Unlike phlogiston "theory" - or ether "theory" - its proponents are highly resistant to their theory being tossed aside once it's been discredited. But that's the nature of science. You throw away your theories when they don't stand up to scrutiny, observation, experimentation or logical analysis. This is the litmus test under which ID fails - its supporters NEVER wish to acknowledge it is false - they may say they would - but they believe it by faith, not by scientific support.

This is not to say that faith is inferior. But it is not science.

THAT BEING SAID - I have no objection to ID being taught in schools.

Teach it in social studies class.

I learned all about Buddha - and Mithra - and the three main deities of Hinduism - in social studies. We learned about the Reformation in social studies. I read about Martin Luther and Calvin in social studies. I learned about Confucianism, Jainism, animism, Taoism in social studies. And if you're going to argue ID - an argument really grounded in faith rather than science - it gets equal billing with other religious teaching. If it's objectivity we want, it goes along with everything else. THAT is *fair*.

Well said. Few people have a problem with ID being taught, they just have a problem with it being taught as a science.

 

[Pushrod]

I wish the whole English-speaking world would once and for all learn what a "theory" is.

It is NOT "unsubstantiated conjecture". You may claim that you have a 'theory' that crop circles are made by aliens - but I strongly believe you don't have a shred of evidence, proof, experimentation or anything to put behind it. What you MEAN to say is, it's your 'conjecture'. You think it's true.

Now this is because "theory" is used in everyday language interchangeably with 'hypothesis', 'assumption' and 'conjecture'. To the everyday person, it means the same thing. Thus, when someone refers to the theory of evolution - even if you support it - there's a tendency to shrug and say, yeah but it's JUST a theory.
.

Sam,
Thanks for saying that for me, I was just about to write the same thing when I scrolled to the end of the posts and found yours. Here is a good example of what a theory is compared to a hypothesis:
Hypothesis:

A tentative explanation or idea about how things work
A hypothesis guides you in further work to get a better answer
Example of a hypothesis: "The moon is made of cheese". How could we test this hypothesis?

Construct a rocket to go to the moon and return with samples
Make a cheese pizza substituting the moon samples for the cheese
Ask people to eat the pizza and see if they can tell any difference from pizza made with real cheese.
Most likely conclusion: Hey, this pizza tastes like dirt
New hypothesis (altered to include additional information from above experiment): The moon is not made of cheese, but is made of dirt, sort of like the Earth

Theory:

A theory is an explanation of the general principles of certain phenomena with considerable facts to support it
A theory remains valid only if every new piece of information supports it
If a single piece of available information does not support a theory, then the theory (as proposed) is disproved


Fact:

An indisputable truth


Example:

It is a fact that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, an explosion equivalent to about 15 million tons of TNT occurred.
It is a theory that this explosion was due to a natural, extra-terrestrial phenomenon and not to an activity associated with man.
One hypothesis is that a comet collided with the Earth (a competing hypothesis is that a small black hole collided with the Earth)

 

[slotted]

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmiller.pdf
Below are some highlights that were pointed out on another message board. I'm going to start the long read now.

On whether the disclaimer is religious in nature:

In summary, the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere. Furthermore, as Drs. Alters and Miller testified, introducing ID necessarily invites religion into the science classroom as it sets up what will be perceived by students as a "God-friendly" science, the one that explicitly mentions an intelligent designer, and that the "other science," evolution, takes no position on religion. (p. 49)

On whether ID is science:

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. (p. 64)

On Of Pandas and People, the "textbook" referred to in the Dover School Board's "disclaimer":

Accordingly, the one textbook to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and badly flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case. (pp. 86-87)

On the goals of the proponents of ID (referred to as the "IDM" for "Intelligent Design Movement"):

After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents’, as well as Defendants’ argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (pp. 88-89)

 

[ylexot]

Strangely, I have yet to see anyone quote the disclaimer that caused it all and it took me a while to find it (copied from the original legal complaint form):

Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind

I just think it's important to see what the complaint was about instead of just what the media shows you. Carry on.