PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Judge rules against ID
       It's about time!

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From here:
NEWS

"HARRISBURG, Pa. - "Intelligent design" is "a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory" and 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.
Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said."

Bravo, Judge Jones!




 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:31 PM on December 20, 2005 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Judge Jones was appointed to the bench by President Bush in 2002.  His nomination was supported by many convervatives including Rick Santorum.  It is also important to note that he is very active in his Church (Lutheran).

I'm sure glad I checked the Judge's record before posting a rant about "an out of control liberal judicial branch cow-towing to secular intertests by legislating from the bench."

All kidding aside, it is nice to see logic, reason and the truth prevail over ignorance and dishonesty!!!
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 2:55 PM on December 20, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Katzmiller decision

On page 136:

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false.  Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existance of a supreme being and to religion in general.  Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiff's scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:24 PM on December 20, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, there was obviously a heavy load of witness impeachment if they made a federal judge that pissed off.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 12/22/2005 at 11:20 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:19 AM on December 22, 2005 | IP
Gomez

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Is America now opposing freedom of speech and belief? If any other teaching were banned it would be called censorship.

(Edited by Gomez 12/24/2005 at 6:24 PM).
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 6:22 PM on December 24, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Is America now opposing freedom of speech and belief? If any other teaching were banned it would be called censorship.


I'm afraid you don't quite understand the issue. The trial was a lawsuit over the Dover County School Board, which wanted to put Intelligent Design into their science curriculum. Sorry, but "science" at no level is about being fair or providing "all sides" of an argument. It's objective, and nothing more. In the trial, the Dover board was asked how Intelligent Design qualifies as science... and no one succeeded in a decent explanation. It had nothing to do with freedom of speech.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 8:20 PM on December 24, 2005 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Dover trial was about whether ID should be taught in the science classroom.  It has nothing to do about censorship.  

ID is not a scientific theory.  It is nothing more than creationism poorly disguised to sound like a scientific theory.  It's merely a belief that a supernatural power (God) created life on Earth - creationism.  Which is certainly not science.

Science has nothing to do with proving or disproving the existence of God, or any other supernatural power.  The scientific method does not, and cannot, deal with the supernatural - prove or disprove it, as such things cannot be measured nor detected.  

ID is not science!  Therefore it should not be taught in a science classroom.  However, that doesn't mean that it can't be discussed in some other class - such as a philosophy class.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 2:25 PM on December 28, 2005 | IP
pocket

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/archive.cfm?type=Potter&action=getComplete&ref=5458

This article is worth reading to anybody interested.
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 3:13 PM on January 5, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What's really funny is, if you look at what the Dover school actually required under their "teach both sides" curriculum, no actual ID was ever taught in the class.  The entire "curriculum" was a paragraph read at the beginning of freshman science which stated that there was an alternative to the evolution theory and that IF YOU WANTED to you could pick up a book in the library.  Everyone here knows that I don't want ID taught in the classroom, but Dover never required ID to be taught in the classroom.  They didn't even allow ID to be taught in the classroom.  They simply had a book in their library and told students they could check it out if they so chose.  I can't believe how much taxpayer money was blown to keep teachers from saying "there is a book in the library."  Chuckle.  Good thing we kept that judge from ruling on any important cases.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 1:56 PM on January 6, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It starts with these simple cases, and works its way up. I see it is a very visible slippery slope. First, they start with a teacher being required to "not teach Evolution as fact." Next, they slap the stickers on their biology textbooks that urges kids to "think critically about all issues and be aware that other theories are out there." Now they're making completely un-related resources available to students, who will eventually bring the "alternative books" up in class if they're at all interested in the issue. It's not hard for me to see this progressing further. I think it's a lot safer to stomp the movement into the ground before it gains anymore publicity than it already has.

That's what this is all about, of course: publicity. ID'ists to this day refuse to come up with any predictions for their "theory," and they still can't explain exactly how you can falsify Intelligent Design. No one can stop their attempts to prove Intelligent Design correct in the labratory--and no one should have the right to, either--but as far as getting the last word in this mockery of a national debate goes, the scientists are hard-set on winning. The world has now caught wind of what's going on in the United States, and people everywhere are realizing we have a chance to smash the ID movement into smaller and smaller pieces, so they're doing just that.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 1/6/2006 at 4:44 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:43 PM on January 6, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

think critically about all issues and be aware that other theories are out there."

Oh no!  We can't have that in schools.  Mindless drones.  I want mindless drones!  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:29 PM on January 6, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 1:56 PM on January 6, 2006 :
What's really funny is, if you look at what the Dover school actually required under their "teach both sides" curriculum, no actual ID was ever taught in the class.  


That may have been the "stated" requirement, but the court testimony clearly revealed that the intent of the board went much deeper.

It's not funny, but it may be perjury.

Meetings were like revivals: Trial Witness


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 6:00 PM on January 6, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh no!  We can't have that in schools.  Mindless drones.  I want mindless drones!


...except that the result of destroying scientific thinking in America would BE mindless drones. Like I said, it's a slope. It STARTS with the harmless "Not everything in science is bonafide fact," and has the capacity to turn up with "Science can't explain anything but mathematics."


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 8:14 PM on January 6, 2006 | IP
racoon

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Good for you, Judge Jones. Now it's time for all the other schools out there to follow suit. We want real science!


-------
I'm too good for anything to have created me
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 05:58 AM on February 21, 2006 | IP
Jade-Raevyn

|       |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It starts with these simple cases, and works its way up. I see it is a very visible slippery slope. First, they start with a teacher being required to "not teach Evolution as fact." Next, they slap the stickers on their biology textbooks that urges kids to "think critically about all issues and be aware that other theories are out there." Now they're making completely un-related resources available to students, who will eventually bring the "alternative books" up in class if they're at all interested in the issue. It's not hard for me to see this progressing further. I think it's a lot safer to stomp the movement into the ground before it gains anymore publicity than it already has.


I agree intelligent design shouldn't be taught in science classes.  However, if scientific evidence suggests that evolution doesn't work, isn't that just as important to teach in science classrooms as evolution itself?
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 08:56 AM on February 21, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree intelligent design shouldn't be taught in science classes.  However, if scientific evidence suggests that evolution doesn't work, isn't that just as important to teach in science classrooms as evolution itself?


With all due respect:

No, not really. Science isn't about teaching controversy. That's something that could be covered in a government, politics, or political science course, but not Biology. The focus of Evolution is to explain the groundwork of Biology, and there truly isn't much of a controversy about it in the scientific field to begin with.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:22 PM on February 21, 2006 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.