"In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether [intelligent design] is science. We have concluded it is not," he wrote in his opinion."
Christian Science Monitor
Tuesday, 12/20/05
WASHINGTON AND BOSTON – "Intelligent design" is just another name for creationism - and therefore teaching it in public schools violates the cons utional principle of church-state separation.
That is the bottom line from the decision in perhaps the biggest courtroom clash on the theory of evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial. On Tuesday a federal judge ruled that Pennsylvania's Dover Area School District broke the law when it became one of the first school districts in the United States to include intelligent design in its science curriculum.
The ruling is a blow to certain Christian conservatives, who have been pushing intelligent-design initiatives in upwards of 30 states. It comes as vindication for scientists who have seen this push as an attack on the method of scientific inquiry.
"What's ... important about this case is that it validates the separation of church and state," says Lawrence Krauss, professor of physics and astronomy at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. "Even more important, it's a question of teaching good science."
(end excerpt)
(Click here for the full story from the CSM)
I agree with the bit that intelligent design is something of an attack on the method of scientific inquiry.
Unsurprisingly to me, the judge also found that the push for ID was in reality a thinly veiled attempt by Christian fundamentalists to get their beliefs taught as fact in public schools. This much is obvious to anybody on either side who is honest about the issue .
Yep, you are correct. But I find that the "theory of evolution" is just that. a
theory. I find, again in my own mind, that God's word is more important than
some Englishman who observed some animals on an isolated island. Sorry
"science" has been wrong as much as it has been correct. And correct today, in
scientific terms, will and can be wrong tomorrow. That is a fact. And why do we
still have monkeys and apes and fish.
"something of an attack"
why the weasal words?
creationism/ID are
frontal attacks on discrediting all of scientfic endeavor,
frontal attacks on the Cons ution's separate of state and whatever-BS-calls-itself-a-"church".
frontal attacks on education as the means for transmitting knowledge, culture, and civilization from one generation to the next.
Yeah, that silly science that was wrong about gravitational acceleration, the laws of thermodynamics, lasers, metallurgy, vaccines, anti-biotics, and they must have gotten that whole space travel thing wrong because moon landings aren't in the bible...
Scientific inquiry is a process, and has had some failed theories, but evolutionary theory isn't one of them. To simply ignore it because one wants to cling to a literal translation of ones holy book is silly to me.
Religion is more about morals and ethical behavior than anything else, and shouldn't be telling scientists anything more than what is ethical, not what is factual.
Heh, it is more of a "flanking manuever" than a frontal assult. Frontal assaults have been tried, so now the religious fundamentalists are probing for openings, and trying to work around what they haven't been able to do directly"something of an attack"
why the weasal words?
creationism/ID are
frontal attacks on discrediting all of scientfic endeavor,
frontal attacks on the Cons ution's separate of state and whatever-BS-calls-itself-a-"church".
frontal attacks on education as the means for transmitting knowledge, culture, and civilization from one generation to the next.
I think this just reveals the laziness of Christian parents. Isn't it the parents job to teach their own children about God and religion and the meaning of life? That's the standard argument against teaching sex ed in public school.
Are we talking about the law of physics or theory. Of course you are mixing
the two. Vaccines, antibiotics have had their failures also. space travel
is physics again. But much of space is still theory, wobbling stars, so on,
and so forth. Make fun as you want. But you still didn't answer a fundamental question. If all things evolve, how come we still have the same
animals?
Yeah, teaching morals is completely out of the question. Never teach the
consequences of your actions. Just how to prevent something. Maybe they
should just stick to teaching Darwins theory.
There's nothing intelligent about ID....seriously.
I do however have no problem teaching or learning about Christianity, or any other religions and their beliefs about the origin of life.
Hey xray...if you were born or raised in India what would your thoughts and beliefs represent...oh yeah, the environment around you.
Last edited by Medvedenko; 12-20-2005 at 04:18 PM.
sounds like a science class to me
I had this long disussion with hegamboa a couple weeks back.
In summary, you are not choosing between God's Word and Charles Darwin.
You are choosing between a particular hermeneutic of a particular passage of God's Word, and an entire established field of scientific inquiry.
My views differ from yours because I read the Hebrew mind differently.
They teach more in school than just science. I remember when I went they had social studies, and history, and English, and math, and also music and art, and I also got to choose electives.
I thought siloing the subjects was a good idea because that way they didn't have to lump everything together when they taught.
Others prefer holisitc teaching because it ties everything together, how it's all interconnected. Maybe some Christian schools do it that way.
Yup. If you want your kids to be devout Christians, that starts at home, not school.
We don't. That's the point.
That is the point, you do.We don't. That's the point.
There are fossil records of a whole bunch of extinct species which don't fit into the taxonomy of currently surviving animals.
Or, the shorter form, no we don't.
Wait, so because a zebra is still a zebra, evolution is a failed theory? That makes little or no sense to me.
Again, I think the most pragmatic course on this issue is the clearest approach to it: if parents believe that their children should learn intelligent design or creationism, why is a Sunday School not good enough? Why should public schools be burdened with teaching something that is entirely an article of faith?
I'm a Christian, but I can assure you that I wouldn't want to ask a public school teacher to imbue the tenets of Christianity in my children. That is a job for me, my family, and my Church.
Please, someone, explain to me why that isn't enough.
I will answer you question with a question. Should we not give an
opposing view to a theory. T H E O R Y, all "scientist" agree that it is
a theory not cast in stone. What is wrong with giving both points of
of the theory of how the earth was created. Darwin doesn't explain that
if I am not mistaken.
Big Bang <> Evolution
Big Bang theory is very friendly to Biblical ex nihilo account of creation. Also, it is the best available theory to explain the measured data.
sure, if you can find a competing scientific theory. There's tons of theories about the earth's origins from all types of cultures, zebra, but I doubt you'd like those being taught to your precious little ones.
Because one is entirely rooted in religion, which is an entirely private matter for individuals to deal with on their own, and the other is rooted in science, which is a matter that we ask public schools to teach. We teach many scientific theories in schools, largely because many of the mysteries of the universe have not been fully resolved. But, importantly, the scientific theories we teach are rooted in the principles of science -- they are religiously neutral and not simply articles of faith.
If you'd prefer absolute consistency, then the solution is to not teach either, rather than to use public schools as a means to convey entirely religious messages.
Want religion, go to church.
Science? He was an observer. Just like the writers of the books of the
bible were observers. He came up with a theory, which people thought
made sense. Come on give me a break. His islands still exist and the
animals he observed still are in the same state they were. Shouldn't
they have some changes?
You're kidding right?.
We dont have the same animals. WE ARE NOT the same animals.
++++another thread discussion killed by xray+++++
And it is my fault? How, I ask questions. You have the answers?
I don't have them. But I do have beliefs. That is wrong? But I don't
see where you have to get upset because I question your beliefs.
Something doesn't compute here.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
