Intelligent Design out of Pub Schools in PA

[Pei]

Originally posted by Seagoon
'llo Dowding,

 

Because Intelligent Design isn't Christian (or any other religion for that matter) doctrine or taught in the Bible, Creationism is.

As popular as they are Darwin's Black Box and Darwin on Trial are not part of the bible, neither do they teach biblical creationism. When, for instance, I teach on the creation of the universe, I do not ask the congregation to turn to 1st Behe or 2nd Dembski, I ask them to open their bibles and turn to Genesis 1 & 2.

- SEAGOON

Somewhat disengenous as ID was formulated by creationist christians deliberately so they could claim this.

I accept both of them as theories of the state of life as it is today, however ID is NOT a scientific theory: a scientific theory starts with the facts, whereas the only way you get to ID is through the preconcieved conviction that there must be some guiding intelligence. The two should not be taught together in science classes. ID should be taught in either religion or philosophy (despite it not being explicitly tied to any one doctrine I see it as a religous concept: the fact that the main supporters of it, on this board and in general, are religous supports me in this). That this debate is even occuring is a huge victory for the religous right.

[midnight Target]

If ID isn't religious then why are all the people of Dover damned to hell?


"I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected him from your city…And don’t wonder why he hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for his help because he might not be there. "


http://blog01.kintera.com/christianalliance/archives/2005/11/pat_robertson_d.html

[Sandman]

Originally posted by midnight Target
If ID isn't religious then why are all the people of Dover damned to hell?  

If Pat Robertson wields this kind of power, we're all doomed.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Skilless
Biggun-

Intelligent Design points toward the many holes in the scientific explanation of the universe and suggests that we use "God" to fill in the blanks (I believe God and Creator are interchangeable).  Also the fact that so many unlikely huge coincidences have had to happen to put us here points towards a creator.  What they fail to wrap their minds around is the fact that in an infinite universe there are infinite possibilities (including Intelligent Design)

One thing I know from past discussions around here is that you'll never get anyone to admit they don't know how we got here.

I don't know how we got here and I think that the "holes" should be left empty until we learn otherwise. Once we've decided that a particular "hole" is covered by God, the attempt to prove otherwise is heresy is it not?

[Skilless]

Originally posted by Sandman
I don't know how we got here and I think that the "holes" should be left empty until we learn otherwise. Once we've decided that a particular "hole" is covered by God, the attempt to prove otherwise is heresy is it not?

I think we're in total agrement.

P.S.  It's very refreshing to see someone on the AH BBS that has the ability to admit to not knowing the origins of life.

[Gunslinger]

good, get this decided and get over it/on with life.

[midnight Target]

Boy do I feel sorry for you guys that don't know.

[crowMAW]

The judge, John E Jones (a Christian Republican appointed to the Federal bench 3 years ago by Dubya), had this to say:

Finally, although Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony, such a strategy constitutes additional strong evidence of improper purpose under the first prong of the Lemon test. As exhaustively detailed herein, the thought leaders on the Board made it their considered purpose to inject some form of creationism into the science classrooms, and by the dint of their personalities and persistence they were able to pull the majority of the Board along in their collective wake.

Any asserted secular purposes by the Board are a sham and are merely secondary to a religious objective. Defendants’ previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce that any allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID Policy are equally insincere.

Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

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.

[SOB]

Originally posted by Skilless
One thing I know from past discussions around here is that you'll never get anyone to admit they don't know how we got here.

I don't know.  It'd be fun to find out, but if not, no big woop.

[Black Sheep]

Not sure about ID myself, just as long as they keep teaching Darwins crap as THEORY, and not fact. That stuff has too many ifs, ands, but(t)s and holes in it.

Shakier than Katherine Hepburn's head in a helicopter.

[NUKE]

nobody knows how we got here and anyone who says they know how we got here is just fooling themselves.

I "believe" we are here as a result of a creator, who created the universe and everything in it.

I think I  can argue in behalf of my belief with anyone based on logic and reason and be at least as reasonable as anyone with an oposing view.

But, I have a kinda high IQ, am creative and am well balanced. Others may be more inclined to follow paths based on what they have "learned" is the more reasonable explaination.

[Black Sheep]

well put NUKIE - I concur.







































and thank god the Colts lost on Sunday

[Booz]

Originally posted by Black Sheep
Not sure about ID myself, just as long as they keep teaching Darwins crap as THEORY, and not fact. That stuff has too many ifs, ands, but(t)s and holes in it.

Shakier than Katherine Hepburn's head in a helicopter.

 Education would clear most of that up.

[Silat]

ID is absolutely a Christian attempt to inject Genesis into Science class.
Here is the modern history of ID>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement

The intelligent design movement, which began in the early 1990s, is an organized campaign promoting a Neo-Creationist religious agenda calling for broad social, academic and political changes centering around intelligent design in the public sphere, primarily in the United States. Intelligent design is the controversial conjecture that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not a naturalistic process such as natural selection. The overall goal of the movement is "to defeat materialism" and the "materialist world view" as represented by evolution, and replace it with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." [1]

[texace]

I'm going to inject some selfish, self-indignation here to spice up the argument a bit.

I really do not care how we got here. I do not need to know how the entire human race came to be. It does not matter to me if we were created by some all-powerful, all-knowing being, if we evolved over time or if we were crapped out of a giant potato. Knowing such would not change my life one bit, nor would it reaffirm any of my own beliefs.

What I do care about, however, is where I came from and where I am going. I am more interested in living my life day-to-day and planning my own future than finding out where humans come from. They arrived on Earth long before I got here and they'll die out long after I do. I'm just along for the ride. If evolution's correct, we'll evolve and move on like we have the last hundred thousand years. I won't be around to see it. If ID is correct, God will eventually smite everyone for whatever reason. I won't be around to see that, either.

If we find out where we came from before I die, then great. If not, it ain't going to bother me at all.

But that's me.

Evolution is a scientific theory. It should be taught in science classes. ID is a religious theory. It should be taught in bible study. They're both theories and should be treated as such. Niether of them are right, and neither are wrong. They're theories, regardless of if they're based on fact or preconcieved notions about an angry, invisible being in the sky. Saying either of them is fact is foolish.

Of course, I don't believe the bible should be used as a scientific...anything. But, that's my own opinion.