id

[Bartman10]

Here is the ID ruling, incase anyone cares. :confused:

In summary..

"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-labelled."
"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."
"To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that
Defendants’ ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, § 3 of
the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined
from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area
School District.
3. Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with the
Court and serve on Defendants, their claim for damages and a verified
statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim entitlement.
Defendants shall have the right to object to any such fees and costs to
the extent provided in the applicable statutes and court rules.

[Sniper]

Confused, too many big words

[SimJen]

big words, yep.
America is fucked up........all this creation vs evolution debate. Fuelled by the mass majority of redneck yanks who think the world revolves around their crap religion as they try to force it onto others.
Evolution is a scientific theory with overwhelming evidence to suggest its fact, whereas Creation is entirely made up but just happens to support the bibles series of events.......hmmmmm wonder which one the Religious nutters will support.

[mattt]

Here is the ID ruling, incase anyone cares. :confused:

In summary..

"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-labelled."
"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."
"To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that
Defendants’ ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, § 3 of
the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined
from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area
School District.
3. Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with the
Court and serve on Defendants, their claim for damages and a verified
statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim entitlement.
Defendants shall have the right to object to any such fees and costs to
the extent provided in the applicable statutes and court rules.

What the fuck is this?

[inlinefour]

What the fuck is this?

Are you sure its even in english???:eek5:

[ManDownUnder]

In spite of the opinions of the previous callers - thanks.

Yeah - interesting. Who'd have thought Creationism and Intelligent Design were so closely related? :dodge:

MDU

[Bartman10]

What the fuck is this?

There's a lot of background to it, but essentially some Americans wanted 'Intelligent Design' (i.e. creationism) taught in biology lessons. Their argument was that 'life is so complex that evolution is impossible' and, as typical Americans, took their argument to court.

The material posted above is a summary of the full report from the judge. (see attached .pdf for the full report)

In simple language – judge said “Intelligent Design = Creationism = violation of constitution (i.e. separation of church (creationism) and state (tax funded school system)”

[SimJen]

Whats the bet the nutters appeal...

[TwoSeven]

Actually the judge said you cant teach religion in a state school and dressing up religion with scientific terms is still religion and cant be taught.

We have the same law here as well.

[Damon]

religion with scientific terms

doesn't this include evolution as well? since it's still just a theory with a little evidence to back it up?


Evolution is a scientific theory with overwhelming evidence to suggest its fact

the religious guys would call finding Noah's Ark and Jesus' face cloth thing evidence as well,

If your going to start teaching "Theories" then teach them all and let the students make up their mind, it takes just as much faith to belive in Darwins theory as it does to belive in creation. :corn:

[ManDownUnder]

If your going to start teaching "Theories" then teach them all and let the students make up their mind, it takes just as much faith to belive in Darwins theory as it does to belive in creation. :corn:

And if the rest of society was run on religious principles I'd agree - so long as the other reglions got their crack as well. The story told in Genesis will no doubt have an equivalent in every religion and therefore should ahve equal opportunity to be aired in a classroom...

BUT

1) Western society is guided and based on Scientific methods. The great change happened a while ago - let's say 100 - 200 years ago, and I think it's time some people started to accept that
2) Teaching every variant of every creationism story in class wouldn't leave much time for other topic - you remember them - "the three R's"

I'm happy to creationism and ID to stay out of the classroom personally. If parent want their children to be taught or exposed to it, b all means - teach it themselves, get involved in a church, send the kids to Sunday School.

Just please give ME the option regarding my children's exposure to it. Coz guess which way I'd go...
MDU

[Storm]

Ahhh, you're a pack of heathen bikers you lot :P:P:P

[Damon]

Just please give ME the option regarding my children's exposure to it. Coz guess which way I'd go...
MDU

And what if christian/muslim/hindu families dont want their kids taught evolution?? it's not all about you,

Over the last 20 years there have been studies done in the US and each time no less than 44% of people poled have said that they don't belive in evolution.

Unfortunately the article didn't give values for the yes's and i don't know's but even at it's lowest at 44% is a lot of people that dont want to here about evolution

[ManDownUnder]

And what if christian/muslim/hindu families dont want their kids taught evolution?? it's not all about you,

It's a good point - although the attacking quip at the end wasn't necessary (so I'll ignore it..).

OK - so lets take evolution out of the mix too - what's left?

I'd also add that 44% not believing in evolution doesn't translate to 44% that don't want to hear about evolution. I believe it's needed for a balanced view of what might have happened so everyone can then think/choose/decide for themselves.

[TwoSeven]

doesn't this include evolution as well? since it's still just a theory with a little evidence to back it up?


Umm. No.

Science requires things to be both proven and observed. Since a supreme being can neither be proven or observed, its not science but religion. Religion is anything that requires faith to believe. There is a big difference between the two.

Darwinian evolution has been observed and proved and continues to be so.

[Damon]

Sorry about the "Attacking Quip", it was ment as a point that evolutionist are not the only people in schools, and should not be the ones to decide what everyone should be teaching/learning.



I'd also add that 44% not believing in evolution doesn't translate to 44% that don't want to hear about evolution. I believe it's needed for a balanced view of what might have happened so everyone can then think/choose/decide for themselves.

This is my point, only teaching evolution is not balanced, and does not provide children with the oportunity to think/choose/decide for them selves, i'm saying if we are going to tech the origins of life then by all means teach evolution but also teach the other theories, if you want to take a biased approach then dont teach it at all

[ManDownUnder]

This is my point, only teaching evolution is not balanced, and does not provide children with the oportunity to think/choose/decide for them selves, i'm saying if we are going to tech the origins of life then by all means teach evolution but also teach the other theories, if you want to take a biased approach then dont teach it at all

Then we can agree on that. I have personally talked to my son about evolution and creationism... in 5 year old speak... so he knows there are different opinions held by different people.

I still think evolution should be the basis of education on the issue, and any moderating or alternate viewpoints can be introduced by parents or churches as required.

[Bartman10]

My point: is it appropriate to teach ID in a biology class? The answer is a definite no, just like it would be inappropriate to teach evolution in a church.

Maybe we should start a case that requires preaching of evolution in church, and see how far that goes.

Anyway, as far as I recall school biology only contains a small amount of evolution, most of it is dedicated to cell and organ structure, biochemistry and disease. These things that can definitely be considered and examined in a scientific laboratory.

[Damon]

Anyway, as far as I recall school biology only contains a small amount of evolution, most of it is dedicated to cell and organ structure, biochemistry and disease. These things that can definitely be considered and examined in a scientific laboratory.

Good point bartman, i think we've become caught up on the issue and forgoten how much is actually taught in schools, which is next to naf all,

I got caught up in a decent argument and now you've ruined it, back to work :motu:

[TwoSeven]

Sorry about the "Attacking Quip", it was ment as a point that evolutionist are not the only people in schools, and should not be the ones to decide what everyone should be teaching/learning.

This is my point, only teaching evolution is not balanced, and does not provide children with the oportunity to think/choose/decide for them selves, i'm saying if we are going to tech the origins of life then by all means teach evolution but also teach the other theories, if you want to take a biased approach then dont teach it at all

Dude, many years ago, the king of england went to a lot of effort separating church from state. It was done for a reason. You should spend some time getting an education and finding out why.

Religion and state do not mix. When you separate the two, it allows people to have the freedom to practice whatever religon they like - this is a basic human right - adopted by the united nations. Many people in western countries have died trying to defend this basic right.

The reason religon is not taught in schools is because it would be mixing religion and state since most schools are state owned. If you want to have religion in schools - they go to a private school. Thats what they are there for.

[El Dopa]

doesn't this include evolution as well? since it's still just a theory with a little evidence to back it up?

the religious guys would call finding Noah's Ark and Jesus' face cloth thing evidence as well,

If your going to start teaching "Theories" then teach them all and let the students make up their mind, it takes just as much faith to belive in Darwins theory as it does to belive in creation. :corn:

Sorry mate, wrong on all counts.

There is overwhelming evidence to back up the FACT that evolution happens (natural selection). The mechanism (how it happens) is the theory part, as biologists don't really fully understand the 'how' it happens.

Evolution is the fundamental building block of modern biology, which would not exist without it.

A similar situation would be gravity. It is a FACT. We all know it exists, but a physicist couldn't tell you WHY it exists.

However, my attempts to have a theory of 'intelligent falling' taught in schools aren't getting very far.

As far as I'm aware, Noah's ark hasn't been found, and it has not been established that the shroud of Turin isn't a medieval fake.

If we're going to teach ALL theories, perhaps we should teach medical students about the healing power of crystals and chanting? Or maybe we'll stick with what can demonstrably be shown to work.

[SimJen]

This is my point, only teaching evolution is not balanced, and does not provide children with the oportunity to think/choose/decide for them selves, i'm saying if we are going to tech the origins of life then by all means teach evolution but also teach the other theories, if you want to take a biased approach then dont teach it at all

Some interesting reading:

"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution."

[SimJen]

doesn't this include evolution as well? since it's still just a theory with a little evidence to back it up?

As usual people who have no idea choose to ignore the facts and science.
Much like all creationists they have no want to ever understand both sides of the argument.
They have the uncanny ability to believe whatever the church tells them is fact with very little evidence to ever back it up.
Read my other post to get an idea of what fact/theories really are.


the religious guys would call finding Noah's Ark and Jesus' face cloth thing evidence as well,

The Shroud of Turin has been proven not to be the cloth of jesus.....don't you watch the discovery channel? Carbon dating suggests its from medievel times, although I suppose you and the church would disregard this fact as it is science that has come up with the answer.
Just like the crying virgin statues always end up being complete hoaxes.
Noah's Ark has also not been found.........did you just make that up????


If your going to start teaching "Theories" then teach them all and let the students make up their mind, it takes just as much faith to belive in Darwins theory as it does to belive in creation. :corn:

It takes no faith to believe Darwins theory. It is the most plausible explanation (see my other post). The fact that there is masses of supporting evidence of evolution on a grand scale from animals to humans to tiny organisms is proof enough.
Bullshit bible stories and words from a priest don't constitute evidence.
Kids don't need indoctrinating into the world of make believe gods. Kids should be allowed to grow up free from religion and when they are at an age where they can make their own minds up they can join a church if they want too.

[Vagabond]

Stuff that I didn't evolve from an ape!

:angry2: :angry2:

Aliens mate! as in ET..........

[SimJen]

Stuff that I didn't evolve from an ape!

:angry2: :angry2:

Aliens mate! as in ET..........

True dat, thats another kettle of fish.......you'd have to join Tom Cruise and his loonies if you believe that.
Apes are intelligent creatures. I've got friends that don't look that far removed :eek:

[TwoSeven]

Stuff that I didn't evolve from an ape!

:angry2: :angry2:

Aliens mate! as in ET..........

How about a small furry poodle then :)

[Vagabond]

How about a small furry poodle then :)
Doubt that either i'm 2 bald to be one of those!:2thumbsup

[Ixion]

Dude, many years ago, the king of england went to a lot of effort separating church from state. ...

Eh ? That was those demn Yankee rebels did that. King Harry (Hen VIII) is maybe who you are thinking of, but he did the reverse, proclaimed himself Supreme Head of the Church of England.

Papist Mary disclaimed it (obviously) but Eliz I claimed it back as Supreme Governor.

Our present Queen (whom God Preserve, albeit she is a usurper), still bears the titles Supreme Governor of the Church of England,and Defender of the Faith . The monarch MUST by law be a communicating member of the Church of England , and the Church of England is the Established Church. The Archbishops are de facto members of the Privy council.

[Ixion]

Umm. No.

<snip>

Darwinian evolution has been observed and proved and continues to be so.
A gentleman named Stephen Jay Gould (quoted, unattributedly, by another poster) might disagree with you.

Evolution is a fact (in so far as we can say anything is a fact). *Darwinian* evolution - ie natural selection - is a theory, and one that is looking increasingly inadequate. Not to say it is wrong, but that it is inadequate to explain all that it purports to .

However, if anyone really believes that the appalling mess that we call the universe is as it is by design, let alone *intelligent* design, I can only say to him "Circumspice" .

(Any bets on how long this thread lasts before being merged with the infamous Scottish Thread)

[Skyryder]

Geneisis 1:1;31 is a description of how the earth was formed through an 'evolutionary' process. The belief that all this happened in six days, and I might add that this is the core belief of creationasts, has been proved to be scientifically wrong. Creationists have assumed that where Genisis talks of 'created' that this implies instantaneous. Not so. From the first day to the sixth day is an evolving process not an instantaneous creation.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

And what if christian/muslim/hindu families dont want their kids taught evolution?? it's not all about you,

Over the last 20 years there have been studies done in the US and each time no less than 44% of people poled have said that they don't belive in evolution.

Unfortunately the article didn't give values for the yes's and i don't know's but even at it's lowest at 44% is a lot of people that dont want to here about evolution

Maybe their ancesters were ostriches. Seem to be showing much the same charecteristics.

Skyryder