ID in Dover PA

[FlaSoxxJim]

Big blow to the Creation "Scientists", oops, I mean the ID proponents.

 

Big victory for sciece, education, and church/state separation.

 

And good to see that science and education will not be made to bend over in Dover.

 

HARRISBURG, Pa. Dec 20, 2005 — "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.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1424933

[jasonxctf]

 

truth rules..

[FlaSoxxJim]

The opinion of the court is a monstrous 139 pages (Christmas Reading List!), but the two cogent chunks I've seen a coupel times are these:

 

"The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from "creation" to "intelligent design" occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court's important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs' assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled."

 

and the awesome conclusion:

 

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an

activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court.

Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction

on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a

constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an

imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. 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. 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."

 

It's serendipitous that the judge, John E Jones III, is a conservative judge, a devout Lutheran, and a Republican appointed by Geroge W Bush. The cries of 'judicial activism' will still come, no doubt, but hopefully they will be seen for what they are.

[Mercy!]

[Wong & Owens]

Jones decried the "breathtaking inanity" of the Dover policy and accused several board members of lying to conceal their true motive, which he said was to promote religion.

 

A six-week trial over the issue yielded "overwhelming evidence" establishing that intelligent design "is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory," said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago.

[jasonxctf]

The opinion of the court is a monstrous 139 pages (Christmas Reading List!), but the two cogent chunks I've seen a coupel times are these:

and the awesome conclusion:

It's serendipitous that the judge, John E Jones III,  is a conservative judge, a devout Lutheran, and a Republican appointed by Geroge W Bush.  The cries of 'judicial activism' will still come, no doubt, but hopefully they will be seen for what they are.

 

 

wouldnt a judge trying to overturn roe vs wade be considered an "Activist Judge?" By Republican definition, isnt an activist judge somewhat trying to re-write law from the bench rather than interpret it???

[NorthSideSox72]

wouldnt a judge trying to overturn roe vs wade be considered an "Activist Judge?" By Republican definition, isnt an activist judge somewhat trying to re-write law from the bench rather than interpret it???

 

Evidence would seem to indicate that the Republican definition of an "activist" judge is any judge whose interperetation of the law doesn't fit well with the Repulican Party's views.

 

But yes, to answer your question on the surface, they describe an "activist" judge as one who "legislates from the bench". How that would apply to an overturn of Roe v Wade would be a matter of interperetation and labels on both sides, which is why that whole "activist" marketing scheme is really pretty laughable.

Edited December 20, 2005 by NorthSideSox72

[sox4lifeinPA]

I have no idea where Dover, PA is...

 

 

does anyone?

[NorthSideSox72]

Big blow to the Creation "Scientists", oops, I mean the ID proponents.

 

Big victory for sciece, education, and church/state separation.

 

And good to see that science and education will not be made to bend over in Dover.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1424933

 

 

A victory for freedom and the Constitution. Even better that it was a Republican judge, hopefully stemming the coming tide of cries of "activist judges" from the new-school religious conservative sect of the Republican party.

[Cerbaho-WG]

I have no idea where Dover, PA is...

does anyone?

 

It's some podunk town of about 1000 people. I only knew that because The Daily Show covered the story a bit.

[sox4lifeinPA]

It's some podunk town of about 1000 people. I only knew that because The Daily Show covered the story a bit.

 

 

welcome to pennsylvania.

 

drive down I-80 and it's...cow...cow....cow...podunk cow town...cow....mountain....Penn State...cow..cow...20k hot chicks...cow...mountain...podunk mining town...

 

 

I'm sure Dover's in there somewhere.

[kapkomet]

welcome to pennsylvania.

 

drive down I-80 and it's...cow...cow....cow...podunk cow town...cow....mountain....Penn State...cow..cow...20k hot chicks...cow...mountain...podunk mining town...

I'm sure Dover's in there somewhere.

20k hot chicks... must be in Amish country...

 

CHURN SOME BUTTER BABY!

[Mercy!]

20k hot chicks... must be in Amish country...

 

CHURN SOME BUTTER BABY! 

Are you sure? I was picturing something more along the lines of

 

[kapkomet]

Are you sure?  I was picturing something more along the lines of

 

... where the hell did you find that? (I see the link... you have to have waaaaay too much time on your hands to remember where that was)

 

And the thing is, this is right up PA's alley.

[sox4lifeinPA]

And the thing is, this is right up PA's alley.

 

whatever, chicken f***er.....

 

[BHAMBARONS]

I have no idea where Dover, PA is...

does anyone?

 

 

Actually it is in South Central Penn. I had an aunt that lived there and I also attended conventions at the state Fairgrounds. Map wise it is 35 miles south of Harrisburg and about 7 miles from York Penn which is on I-83 close to the Maryland line

[kapkomet]

whatever, chicken f***er.....

 

Hey... that's reserved for southsider. He's the resident chicken f***er on this board. Now take it back.

[southsider2k5]

What's so scary about intelligent design?

 

Dennis Byrne, a Chicago-area writer and consultant

Published December 19, 2005

 

 

Here is a question for scientists who ridicule intelligent design, yet say they believe in God: When you pray, is it to a God who just sat around and watched the universe spring into existence all by itself?

 

Or did God give himself something to do, and thus, here we are?

 

It's hard to envision an all-perfect and almighty God who just likes to watch. But that's the kind of God that the critics of intelligent design would impose on us. Scientists, of course, would vehemently deny that they are in any way trying tell people of faith what kind of God they should believe in. But they need to honestly admit that this battle between evolution and intelligent design is a two-way street: People of faith should not be directing scientists how to do their work and scientists ought to be more thoughtful and respectful about how their work complicates or complements the world of belief. Science as well as theology, philosophy and religion have legitimate claims to exploring and discovering answers to the Big Question: How did we get here, and why?

 

Some things science just can't explain. Such as the mystery of how a perfect creator turned himself into one of his less-than perfect creations--a man--but still remained perfect. Based on faith alone, millions of people celebrate that inexplicable miracle on Christmas.

 

Scientists, in fact, can't explain a lot of things, and that's no knock on scientists. It's because a lot of answers cannot meet the scientific standards of observation, experimentation, replication and verification. But it's also no reason that any subject of scientific interest cannot also be explored by theology, philosophy and religion.

 

Yet the fight between intelligent design and evolution is popularly framed as an effort by theologians, philosophers and the faithful to impose their unscientific conclusions on science. Perhaps a few dominators do, but most of us do feel the need to reconcile what science and faith tell us--about our world and us.

 

The reality today is that when theology, philosophy or religion dares to examine the Big Question, its practitioners find themselves increasingly bumping heads with scientific claims of exclusive competence. This is wrong. Neither science nor theology has the right to tell the other to butt out of this quest. In this, no one has the right to demand that the study of intelligent design be kept out of schools. Out of the science class, perhaps, but not out of all classrooms.

 

Centuries ago, science on one hand and philosophy, theology and religion on the other were separated--to the relief of those who correctly believed that the church had gone too far in using dogma to block scientific advances. Exploring reality through the prism of science requires one form of knowledge, while discovering and refining our understanding of God and his presence in the world require another.

 

Now that pendulum has swung too far the other way, to the point that science and philosophy, and theology and religion are regarded, by some, as mortal enemies. The idea of unified knowledge has come on hard times. Few people are exploring how the two approaches can help each other. That science is rushing toward a unified theory that "explains everything" is not a reason to abandon non-scientific ways to approach a comprehensive understanding of everything.

 

This requires an admission that there is a higher level of knowledge beyond science alone or theology alone. Vast areas of knowledge are open to those who realize that just as a branch of physics examines the "first principle of everything," so does metaphysics. Or that cosmology and theology are on the same coin, just on different sides.

 

We should approach the Big Question with awe and humility, not ridicule and self-certainty. With excitement and optimism, instead of division and the kind of cynicism that rejects the possibility of parallel or complementary explanations.

 

To leave students without a perspective of how philosophy and theology and religion help bring us to an understanding of "all things," is as wrong as denying students the understanding that science brings. Philosophers and theologians may--must, actually--rigorously examine the scientific theory that random chance explains everything. A denial of that right and responsibility rises from the same spirit of arrogant certitude that haunted Galileo.

 

----------

 

[email protected]

 

I don't know about some of this, but he touches on my pet peeve of this arguement and that is the arrogence of academia when it comes to ID, and actually to most arguements. The air of all knowingness and the willingness to look down their noses at anyone who would dare believe in something other than what they publish is the most irritating part of all of this. Either you believe in ID, or you are somekind of 18th churchhouse knuckledragger.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I don't know about some of this, but he touches on my pet peeve of this arguement and that is the arrogence of academia when it comes to ID, and actually to most arguements.  The air of all knowingness and the willingness to look down their noses at anyone who would dare believe in something other than what they publish is the most irritating part of all of this.  Either you believe in ID, or you are somekind of 18th churchhouse knuckledragger.

 

If you believe that science considers itself all-knowing, then you'd have to ask why any scientists have jobs. EVERY scientific hypothesis and theory is open to critical evaluation, iterative adjustment, or abandoment as evidence indicates. That seems to me tthe opposite of all-knowingness. rather it is an admission that scienttific knowledge consists of a set of working hhypotheses rather than gospel truths.

 

That is not to say that individual scientists cannot mistakenly feel they are infallable in their conclusions. But that is a human failing that we can see in certain individuals from all professions.

 

The important part of that article above is this, and I agree with it:

 

In this, no one has the right to demand that the study of intelligent design be kept out of schools. Out of the science class, perhaps, but not out of all classrooms.

 

If philosophy, religion, or theology departments want to add an exploration of ID to their course offerings, that's perfectly acceptable to me and the vast majority of scientists. But since the existence of a God/Divine Agent/Intelligent Desiger is NOT TESTABLE, none of it has a place in science or in science classrooms.

[Rex Kickass]

This made me laugh.

 

[Wong & Owens]

I don't know about some of this, but he touches on my pet peeve of this arguement and that is the arrogence of academia when it comes to ID, and actually to most arguements.  The air of all knowingness and the willingness to look down their noses at anyone who would dare believe in something other than what they publish is the most irritating part of all of this.  Either you believe in ID, or you are somekind of 18th churchhouse knuckledragger.

 

My pet peeve is that this writer(and many others who agree with his position), are hiding behind a false front of "ID just means that there's something bigger than what we see/know/etc." What they REALLY mean--and it's alluded to in his article, where he brings up how a perfect god made himself into an imperfect man yet still remained perfect--is that people need to embrace the christian view of the world. If they were TRULY interested in the pursuit of any more intelligent being, then they would bring up the possibility of aliens, or the buddhist version, or whatever(yes, even the flying spaghetti monster!). They have no interest in this-- they only want the christian version "taught." And to me, the christian theory has as much evidence to support it as the aforementioned pasta demon.

[Mercy!]

Our lack of science literacy is one reason that the next century will see the United States as a relative has-been on the world stage unless it can get its priorities and educational system straightened out. The very fact that this discussion keeps occurring indicates that even people who consider themselves educated are woefully ignorant of what science as a discipline, and particularly the scientific method, entails.

 

I kind of view our country as being in a similar position to that of the Muslim world centuries ago when they were at the forefront of knowledge in many areas, but have fallen so far behind today.

 

There is no conflict that I can see between a belief in God and a belief in evolution. However, there are most definitely conflicts between some religious teachings and evolution. You would think that our form of government with its grounding in separation of Church and State would be more immune to this attempted hijacking by the American Taliban. I wonder why it hasn’t been.