Dover Ruling: teaching Intelligent Design in the schools is unconstitutional

Well there really is no way to teach Intelligent Design anyway.

 

Sure there is. In Sunday School, the Seminary, and Philosophy or Comparative Religion classes in college.

Just not in science class.

 

great news.

 

Excellent news.

 

nice to see the pendelum swinging back towards common sense on this one.

damn liberal activist judges!

and you cant really argue that this goes against what the people in that school district want b/c they voted out the entire school board for putting I.D./creationism back in school in the first place.

 

FYI the judge in the case is a Republican who I recall hearing was appointed by the current Bush Admin..

 

I know that ID brings all sort religious context into place, but you can't say for 100% that some sort of jump start didn't happen on earth. I think it would be totally cool to take 2 weeks out of class, have a forum (or atleast soem sort of project) of how life started here on earth.

 

But we can't say with a 100% certainty that the internal structure of an atom is composed of protons, neutrons and electrons. The truth is that there are a lot of ideas in science that can't be proven 100%. In fact we knowingly teach in schools ideas that its widely know have been proven flawed like Newtonian mechanics that has been superceded by Relativity.

Yet why haven't we heard an outcry from these groups arguing for an open mind and that science education is wrong pressing for policies to teach alternative atomic theories or for warning stickers on science textbooks about Newtonian mechanics?

All of these groups arguing that science education is dogmatic because it won't allow ID is oddly silent when it comes to arguing for teaching alternative ideas on an range of other scientific theories.

 

I wouldnt mind ID as an elective.

 

I just find it odd that anyone can determine what I should, or might want to learn of, for me.

That said, it is also true that most opinions on this matter are taught in the home already. And if not, it by no means indicates that someone will not explore the origins of existence at some point in their individual life either.

It funny to me. It just seems like if the shoe was on the other foot, that the rhetoric would be the same in many senses. Whoever has the current upper hand in this debate will always claim victory in these matters. And whoever has a chance to spark debate against the system, will.

 

It doesn't seem odd that people should decide that something that isn't science won't be taught in science class. Even the leading scientific expert who testified in favor Intelligent Design admitted that the definition of science would have to be expanded to include Intelligent design.

ID might even be true, but it still isn't science.

If I wanted to learn that the BRitish won the American Revolution, I couldn't petition to have it taught, because it isn't history. In history class history should be taught.

But I do think you are right about which ever side has upper hand claiming victory.

 

The people of Dover (l live 2 miles from Dover) voted out the school board 51% to 49% -- not an overwhelming mandate either way.

As a Christian I have no problem with religion not being taught in Public School (Christian's have other options). I do wish that some of the holes or outstanding questions about evolution were talked about though.

 

It's not about repression of ideas. It's about what constitutes science.

I read an apt parallel for ID and evolution. It went something like this:

Intelligent Design is as scientific an explanation for the evolution of man, as Angels Bowling is as an explanation for thunder. Both are possible, but neither is science.

 

I still don't get it why people try so hard to squeeze ID into a science class. It could be easily instroduced in some religion or culture classes. I don't think even the attemption to convince others it's a science is somehow NOT in line with the Bible. It is spiritual, and it's not about experiment and proof. Why science then?

 

I still smile reading this. Owned.

 

yes, you see that was a joke. i was poking fun, if you will, at those on the right who want to label judges who make rulings they dont like "activists", as seems to be the popular trend from the right these days.

and no, the judges were not being "activist" when they stopped the recount in florida. they were just doing their jobs!

 

No one is determining what you can or should learn. They are determining what can or can't be taught using public money.

You are more than welcome to learn ID from your parents or church or any private school.

 

It is interesting to note that the judge in this case was appointed by George W Bush.

 

not especially. the judges his family has appointed have a history of having independant thought.