Well, it was fun while it lasted:

Quote :

"HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) -- A federal judge ruled Tuesday that "intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district. 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.."

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 11:10 AM. Reason : eh]

12/20/2005 11:10:11 AM

Thank God.

haha

12/20/2005 11:10:49 AM

thy will be done, master.

i have been touched by his noodly appendage.

12/20/2005 11:15:21 AM

I am a Pastafarian convert.

Ramen!

12/20/2005 11:20:24 AM

Quote :

"Thank God. haha"

Now lets see what happens in Kansass

12/20/2005 11:37:52 AM

kansas does not want to suffer the same fate as pennsylvania. philadelphians are preparing for meatball rain and rivers to flow red with marinara.

12/20/2005 11:40:15 AM

JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF LIBERAL ACTIVIST JUDGES TRYING TO TAKE GOD OUT OF AMERICA

12/20/2005 11:40:56 AM

12/20/2005 11:52:11 AM

so they mention in the article on cnn that there are inexplicable "gaps" in the evolutionary theory. what are some of these "gaps" they are referring to?

12/20/2005 12:44:37 PM

I think it has something to do with the inexplicable nature of the development of certain groups within a species who are dumb as shit and try to masquerede their religion as science.

12/20/2005 1:14:58 PM

^^The gap between pre-cellular and cellular forms, for one. Also the whole problem of how prebiotic systems developed into the familiar DNA based stuff we know and love. There are also controversies over the pace of evolutionary change and the relative importance of different selectionn factors, to name a few.

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 1:15 PM. Reason : ssslllooowww]

12/20/2005 1:14:59 PM

Not that I defend Intelligent Design because I think it's a load of crock (my personal opinion being that it's a big type conflict), but evolution is a THEORY. There are gaps in it that we cannot prove at this time with the scientific process. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should kill it; Darwin's Theory is the best we have right now. However, almost as disturbing as the intelligent design folks are those who treat Darwin as dogma: they have no appreciation for how science works.

Sadly though, thanks to ID which exploits this nuance, that point is being lost.

12/20/2005 1:18:43 PM

From article on MSN.com, not the most trustworthy or neutral, but the judge says:

Quote :

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge," Jones wrote. "If so, they will have erred. ... 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 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."

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 1:50 PM. Reason : blajmahal]

12/20/2005 1:48:56 PM

inherit the wind bitches

12/20/2005 1:50:51 PM

gg judge

12/20/2005 1:51:41 PM

THANK YOU.

Quote :

"Not that I defend Intelligent Design because I think it's a load of crock (my personal opinion being that it's a big type conflict), but evolution is a THEORY. There are gaps in it that we cannot prove at this time with the scientific process. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should kill it; Darwin's Theory is the best we have right now. However, almost as disturbing as the intelligent design folks are those who treat Darwin as dogma: they have no appreciation for how science works. Sadly though, thanks to ID which exploits this nuance, that point is being lost."

I'm pretty sure that even though it's called the theory of evolution, it isn't an actual "theory."

Here is some reading on that:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 2:18 PM. Reason : Not to mention that true theories must be based on fact and have testable hypotheses...]

12/20/2005 2:08:45 PM

No. Its an actual "Theory."

Unless you're being sarcastic, in which case, carry on.

12/20/2005 2:12:41 PM

Like the theory of gravity!

Or the alternative which I am in support of, Intelligent Falling.

12/20/2005 2:13:23 PM

lol

12/20/2005 2:31:23 PM

^^ That's a good one. Heh.

Seriously though. It is a theory, but like gravity, we have no better explanation, so we use it until scientists can come up with something better, and no, intelligent design doesn't count.

12/20/2005 2:44:27 PM

it's a theory, but it IS scientifically provable

intelligent design is not. it's wholly unscientific. that's why it shouldn't be taught in science classrooms.

12/20/2005 3:06:21 PM

gravity is very much a working theory

12/20/2005 3:18:52 PM

Just a District Court's ruling - nothing has gone down in flames.. one district court of all the hundreds in the country made a ruling - it will now go to the Circuit and will probably be reversed.

12/20/2005 3:52:24 PM

^^ The fact that gravity exists though is not in question, just the mechanism of how it works.

ID wants to completely deny the fact that any evolution happens at all.

12/20/2005 4:09:58 PM

^not exactly

ID is the stupidest shit around
because it says "we don't care when, we don't care who; but something somewhere played a part in the development and design of life as we know it"

so ID, if taken literally, means that we could all be the result of aliens

and the conservative Christians who push it so hard are willing to overlook that aspect

12/20/2005 4:27:06 PM

the language of the judge is a lot better than the actual ruling

12/20/2005 4:34:23 PM

See, I just don't understand how the entire Intelligent Design thing works as a science. It answers a completely different question from evolutionary theory: evolution simply explains the mechanics of how our biologicial system works while ID is answering where it came from. ID doesn't give any explanation for how the system works...

Quote :

"it's a theory, but it IS scientifically provable"

I don't disagree that evolutionary theory is provable based on our current observations, but that doesn't mean that something better or some contrary observation can't come along down the road to topple it. Yet with so many people constantly saying that evolution is fact (without the nuance of the scientific definition of theory), it only further fuels the ID camp.

12/20/2005 5:44:12 PM

faith + grace take you to god

reason takes you to science

one can be taught in church, the other in school, no reason to claim that they are mutually exclusive.

12/20/2005 6:31:03 PM

Quote :

" it will now go to the Circuit and will probably be reversed."

i hate to burst your bubble there will be no appeal. the citizens voted out those dumbass board members so the school board is now highly opposed to pursuing the asinine policy of promoting ID

12/20/2005 6:31:10 PM

HERE WE GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!1

12/20/2005 6:42:49 PM

12/20/2005 6:58:22 PM

Quote :

"The fact that gravity exists though is not in question, just the mechanism of how it works. ID wants to completely deny the fact that any evolution happens at all."

Depends what you mean by "evolution". Most advocates of ID would not deny that there is variation
in the genetic makeup of biological organisms. They would just tend to believe that the observed variation is not sufficient to explain the diversity and structure displayed in the biological life found on this planet. Neither evolution nor ID explain why we see the biological life that we do on this planet, chance(evolution) or imagination(ID) both allow many other possibile histories than the one that has actually occured.

Evolutionary analysis typically explains why some given organism exists in terms of it's ability to survive in an ecosystem. The interworkings of the ecosystem are studied as to understand how the organism has the ability to survive. But, the actual origin of that ability is essentially random, just the result of a random mutation ( Lamarkians aside ). On the other hand ID would analyze the same system searching for all the same interworkings. The differenence is just the interpretation, ID says the structure is due to some "intelligent designer", whereas evolution says that chance and natural selection created the structure. Neither camp disregards reason and/or faith necessarily. And both
avenues of investigation will discover the same data, the difference is merely interpretation.

Personally, I don't think either is properly speaking science, in as much as "science" can be defined...
the question of origins is more one of belief than proof.

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 8:04 PM. Reason : .]

12/20/2005 8:03:08 PM

I've said it a thousand times, and I'll say it again: throw ID out of schools but teach evolution with the caveat that it leaves some things to be desired and is, at the end of the day, the best explanation we've got for certain things -- not the perfect or only explanation.

12/20/2005 10:26:52 PM

Quote :

"On the other hand ID would analyze the same system searching for all the same interworkings. The differenence is just the interpretation, ID says the structure is due to some "intelligent designer", whereas evolution says that chance and natural selection created the structure. Neither camp disregards reason and/or faith necessarily. And both avenues of investigation will discover the same data, the difference is merely interpretation. "

You misunderstand ID. What you described is what ID could be and what a lot of people believe already (basically, evolution is the mechanism of god's ID, with god guiding evolution). But, true IDist believe the world was created as-is, in state (and if pressed, they'll say it was 6000 years ago in accordance with Genesis).

There's an eloquent quote somewhere against IDers that is about god and chance and will and stuff, but I don't remember it, but it basically says that IDers are the ones that want to limit the power of god.

12/20/2005 10:32:37 PM

Quote :

"whereas evolution says that chance and natural selection created the structure"

no. it says randomization and selection. not all by chance. this whole "evolution means we are here by chance" isnt true. evolution doesnt posit why we are here, or if it is by chance. that is a fascinating philosphical/religous question, but not a scientific one.

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 10:38 PM. Reason : -]

12/20/2005 10:37:28 PM

Quote :

"And both avenues of investigation will discover the same data, the difference is merely interpretation."

Hell, one of the leading lights of ID, Behe, has basically made the argument from incredulity the guiding principle of his research program. ID is thus a defeatist research program--when things get tough fall back to your all purpose explanation. How it will "discover the same data" I have no idea.

12/20/2005 11:32:23 PM

that's fine.

the earth was produced by an already-identified cause: God.

12/20/2005 11:44:43 PM

too bad that theory is not scientifically proveable.

Which means that it has no business in science classes.

12/20/2005 11:47:26 PM

theory is your opinion, much as the theories taught in science classes

i consider it fact

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 11:49 PM. Reason : ]

12/20/2005 11:49:10 PM

^^^^^could you elaborate on the difference between "chance" and "randomization" ?

I did say,

"But, the actual origin of that ability is essentially random, just the result of a random mutation"

As opposed to the Lamarkian idea that the needs of the parent generation results in the
beneficial mutations of the next generation. Like the classic example of the Giraffe getting longer and
longer necks because they were stretching to get the food higher on trees. That explaination is no longer accepted, instead the idea is that certain Giraffe ancestors randomly mutated to have longer necks. Then those mutated animals could get more food so they outbred the other shorter Giraffes (I should say ancestors of the Giraffe...) till finally we get the Giraffe of today. I would guess that the Lamarkian idea is still being used to sell the public on evolution, at least I see it on TV in as much as I end up watching that kind of dribble.

Quote :

"You misunderstand ID. What you described is what ID could be and what a lot of people believe already (basically, evolution is the mechanism of god's ID, with god guiding evolution). But, true IDist believe the world was created as-is, in state (and if pressed, they'll say it was 6000 years ago in accordance with Genesis)."

I don't think this is universally the case. Of course an YEC (Young Earth Creationist) would sooner
side with an ID than some die-hard aitheist, but there really is a difference. There really are people who are both non-Christians and vehemently anti-evolution.

Personally, I'm a skeptic of both camps. I don't believe we can answer questions about origins because they are to subjective. They strike to close to the basis of our belief systems to be answered objectively for one thing. Besides that, origins invariably involve processes which cannot be repeated. The arrow of time goes but one way.
From a physical perspective, we need to know the intial conditions. How can we know those? At some point in time a model might appear convincing, but will it continue to be? We used to say humans came out of Africa like 2 millions years ago, lately the number has been cut to 50-70 thousand by DNA studies. We used to say that the Universe was in a steady state, now we say it is 10 Billion, oops 12 Billion, oops 17 Billion years old. Not to mention inflation.. or the coming
implications of M-theory cosmology. My point is simply that there is way to much flexibility in these arenas of thought to put them on the same logical certitude as say basic physical law.

Ahhhh, the gold standard. When I say science I mean physics. And when I say physics I mean the precise mathematical laws that have been tested in the present time repeatedly to assure their validity. This is key, the certain part of science yields itself to direct observation. Now the laws we take as basic may change as time goes on, but the equations we know now will continue to model the appropriate energy/mass/charge/spin/flavor/color/... In a hundred years we may have entirely different foundational ideas, but the current physical "laws" will still apply in some approximation.
I cannot affix such certitude to historical physics ( cosmology and astrophysics at large ), history
doesn't validate it, and neither does logic.

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 11:51 PM. Reason : ^^^^^]

12/20/2005 11:50:00 PM

^^Thats sad.

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 11:51 PM. Reason : Young Fry of treachery!]

12/20/2005 11:51:21 PM

Quote :

"I don't think this is universally the case. Of course an YEC (Young Earth Creationist) would sooner side with an ID than some die-hard aitheist, but there really is a difference. There really are people who are both non-Christians and vehemently anti-evolution. "

Of course it isn't universally the case. But the kind of people who campaign for "ID" to be taught in schools and for those stickers singling out evolution in books, this is what they believe, and this is ultimately what they want to be taught. If you read the judge's ruling on this case, he notes that some of the pro-ID witnesses lied about not being religiously-motivated.

I personally believe that it's likely that some type of more intelligent being guided the creation of humanity. It's nothing more than a gut-feeling, and I wouldn't argue about it because I have no proof, but it's what I believe. It doesn't conflict with evolution though.

[Edited on December 21, 2005 at 12:25 AM. Reason : wow, n00bs are so much more polite than the hardened soap-boxers ]

12/21/2005 12:24:22 AM

^ i feel the same way. the fact that an intellegent being probably does write the phsical laws that allow for evolution is my belief, but its not scientific.

Quote :

"theory is your opinion"

scientific thoeries are not based on 'opinion'. they are falsifiable ideas from the scientific process.

Quote :

"the earth was produced by an already-identified cause: God"

according to ID it could have been super smart space-alien biologists.

[Edited on December 21, 2005 at 12:38 AM. Reason : -]

12/21/2005 12:33:46 AM

IMO, ID = metaphorical creationism + evolution, so there's really nothing new, just an imposition of God on a prevailing scientific theory (and yes, scientific theories are more substantial than your theory that someone is out to get you, but even accepted theories were once disputed and argued over, rhetorical schools conflicting and such).

The reason not to teach this in school, or biology class specifically, is that you would also have to teach:

1. metaphorical Hinduism + evolution
2. metaphorical Native American mythology + evolution
3. metaphorical Islam + evolution
4. metaphorical "pick your random religion" + evolution

Science classes, I think, are for indoctrinating students with prevailing theories (yes, indoctrinating, for not once did my science teacher question the rhetoric or history of any of these theories), but adding ID would be indoctrinating them with only one form of religious belief (vaguely, but notice that is is limited to a monotheistic view, or super space-alien biologists).

[Edited on December 21, 2005 at 1:00 PM. Reason : aliens...]

12/21/2005 12:51:07 PM

Our forebears meet their maker:

12/21/2005 1:59:42 PM

Quote :

"and the conservative Christians who push it so hard are willing to overlook that aspect"

more aptly, the ones in the news are parading around pretending to say "we don't care when, we don't care who."

Given the judge's language, I am inclined to think that what was being taught actually was little more than repackaged creationism (the article I read mentioned that the "originators of ID" actually declined to get involved and "distanced themselves" from the PA school board), and I *gasp* actually support the judge's decision, if that was case. What I don't like, however, is how he classifies ID as "religiously" based while ignoring the religious ramifications of evolution (being contrary to a literal interpretation of Genesis, spaghetti monster notwithstanding).

Much of the ID "debate" is caused by a misunderstanding of what ID actually is, both by some of its "proponents" and almost all of its opponents. Unfortunately, many of the "proponents" are using ID as a means of putting strict creationism back into text books, something which I would wholeheartedly oppose as much as I oppose strict evolution and "evolution as fact" versions.

I don't think many people would oppose inclusion of "true ID" (aka, ID that isn't just creationism) in a very limited scope.

And, for those who stupidly would oppose true ID on the grounds that it "isn't science," then I need only remind you that science is philosophically little more than the religion of proof. All of the arguments I hear against ID (aside from the "repackaged creationism" ones) fall upon the premise of "ITS NOT SCIENCE!" or "ITS NOT RIGHT!," as in, "its wrong!" Let me point you to the arguments used by those attacking evolution 80-100 years ago who said almost the same thing: "It's not what God told us!" and "ITS NOT RIGHT!" The arguments' supports are identical. They just support the opposite assertion.

12/21/2005 11:25:34 PM

The fact that there exists a religion whose holy books can be read literally to contradict what is generally held as a scientific reality doesn't mean that the science has, inherently, any "religious ramifications".

If that's the way a person wants to look at it, fine.

Scientology says that all psychology is bullshit. All medical whatever is bullshit. The earth is full of ghosts of goddamn aliens who were sent here by a goddamn space monster named Xenu.

People believe this. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THIS.

Does that mean that, because the adherents of a particular religion believe that, for instance, the entirety of medical science is a lie, that it is the responsibility of our public institutions to stipulate that some people disagree with the stance that, say, if your appendix becomes inflamed that you should go to the doctor? Do people talk about the "religious ramifications" of an appendectomy? Of course not.


As for ID, the people who created that terminology were very much in favor of teaching creationism in any way possible. The people who support it still, I think, by and large feel the same way. The simple fact of the matter is, no matter how you slice it, Intelligent Design is a nonscientific proposition and as such has no business whatsoever being taught as science in any school setting.

12/22/2005 1:46:06 AM

Quote :

"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 existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' 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."

-Exerpt from the judges ruling. Couldnt have said it better myself.

/thread.


[Edited on December 22, 2005 at 2:53 AM. Reason : 0]

12/22/2005 2:50:55 AM

HEY WOLFPACK2K

still waiting on a response from you....

Quote :

" it will now go to the Circuit and will probably be reversed."

i hate to burst your bubble but there will be no appeal. the citizens voted out those dumbass board members so the school board is now highly opposed to pursuing the asinine policy of promoting ID

12/22/2005 8:16:20 AM

This is no time for reality-- Jesus needs our help!

12/22/2005 8:18:25 AM