Judge rules against intelligent design Options

[*mipadi*]

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.

“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,” he wrote in his 139-page opinion.

Source

[*nightmare4taki*]

I had to do a paper over this some while ago.

LOL I just think it would be fair to teach both Evolution and Intelligent design.

[imm]

I had to do a paper over this some while ago.

LOL I just think it would be fair to teach both Evolution and Intelligent design.

Do all the other religions believe in a creator and stuff? I'm really not sure >< lol. Otherwise it wouldn't be fair to be teaching just those things, yeah?

Hahaha well, regarding the article, I was so happy...and yeah I remember some kid at a speech competition who did a speech about this. xP

[yo pusha]

good job judges

[Stephire]

I don't really understand. =X
Did the school board get in trouble for doing it?
If so, yay judges.

[*digital.fragrance*]

Do all the other religions believe in a creator and stuff? I'm really not sure >< lol. Otherwise it wouldn't be fair to be teaching just those things, yeah?

Hahaha well, regarding the article, I was so happy...and yeah I remember some kid at a speech competition who did a speech about this. xP

Yeah, Christians and Muslims both believe that a god created everything... polytheists (many gods) believe the same thing.

[imm]

Yeah, Christians and Muslims both believe that a god created everything... polytheists (many gods) believe the same thing.

Oh...maybe it IS fair then...But still, I'm leaning towards anti-intelligent design because concepts are being drawn out from religion and we shouldn't mix church and state...although it has been happening and the US was first built on the basis of Christianity (that's a different story, though).

[*mipadi*]

LOL I just think it would be fair to teach both Evolution and Intelligent design.

Sure, maybe teach intelligent design--in a philosophy curriculum, not a science curriculum. Intelligent design is not science--it cannot be tested using the scientific method.

[Spirited Away]

Do all the other religions believe in a creator and stuff? I'm really not sure >< lol.  Otherwise it wouldn't be fair to be teaching just those things, yeah?

Hahaha well, regarding the article, I was so happy...and yeah I remember some kid at a speech competition who did a speech about this.  xP

You must also keep in mind that there are atheists and agnostics and atheists especially do not believe in any higher power.

Also, just because other religions have gods or goddesses, it doesn't necessarily mean they'd agree with intelligent design. For example, Buddhism teaches a concept almost opposite of ID and it wouldn't be right to force feed ID to anyone.

[heyyfrankie]

LOL I just think it would be fair to teach both Evolution and Intelligent design.

that's what i'm saying!! :[

[yo pusha]

maybe introducing the idea of intelligent design to students is okay, but actually teaching it in a science curriculum? intelligent design is not science

[misoshiru]

YAY good for him :D

[Retrogressive]

Shouldn't people be taught all angles and decide for themselves? That's what I was taught in a Christian school.

[*mipadi*]

Shouldn't people be taught all angles and decide for themselves? That's what I was taught in a Christian school.

The problem is that the school district wanted to teach intelligent design as part of their biology curriculum, I believe. Intelligent design, aside from its lack of merit, is not a science, as it does not put forth a testable, provable hypothesis (the basis of science). It might be appopriate in a philosophy curriculum, but not a science curriculum.

[*krnxswat*]

what the hell's up with everyone posting articles these days

[vash1530]

wtf is intelligent design?(retorical) It's not science and since we are talking about a science class, these people have no argument. Isn't there a similar debate about this for social studies classes?

[technicolour]

I'm assuming that Intelligent Design = God and the creation of Earth.


I really wonder if my Bio teacher's seen this. I'm sure he'd have a field day.

[*not_your_average*]

Good for them. Intelligent design is not science, so don't teach it as such.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Yay. *waves flag*

Errr yea not science ok that's done. There's really no arguement that can go beyond that, logically...

[*kryogenix*]

I don't like intelligent design, because it's too ambiguous.

[yummy_delight]

I believe in intelligent design, but I do think the judge's ruling was fair.

Considering there isn't really any hard scientific evidence to back up intelligent design since it is based mostly on faith, it's only fair that science teachers don't teach it in their classes.

[Smoogrish]

Personally, I'm all for Darwin's Theory of Evolution.. There's not any evidence and the states are supposed to have separation of church and state.

[dreamergirl]

Someone tell me what viable evidence do evolutionists have that we "evolved from monkeys"?????? NONE!!!!!!! Whats more probable: that we where created from an intelligent Designer, or that we came from apes. Whats easier to believe. For me its the Designer. Everything that man makes has a designer. Clothes, jewelery, computers, games, household stuff, everything was designed and made by someone.
Lets see............. OK say you take all the little pieces it takes to make a watch and put them on the ground. Can someone here honestly believe that those pieces are gonna "evolve" into a watch over a million or even a billion years? I dont, and that whole senario is impossible. So, if watches and everything else cant evolve, how can people believe that human beings can? We are a million times more complex of a structure than any watch. We are special, designed by someone. NOT EVOLVED!!!

[*kryogenix*]

My problem with intelligent design is that it doesn't work in science OR religion.

God created us, not some space alien or spaghetti monster, which Intelligent Design allows for. I'm fine with learning the "theory" (I stress theory) of evolution as long as it is pointed out that evolution is a theory, not fact set in stone.

[*mipadi*]

Can someone here honestly believe that those pieces are gonna "evolve" into a watch over a million or even a billion years? I dont, and that whole senario is impossible. So, if watches and everything else cant evolve, how can people believe that human beings can?

Um...because it's not alive, and doesn't contain DNA, thus a watch doesn't undergo the genetic mutations necessary for natural selection, and by extension evolution, to occur?

However, it's not as if non-natural objects don't undergo natural selection and evolution. For example, the Nintendo was released in the early 1980s (1984, if memory serves). Since then, videogame consoles have evolved--they've been improved, to the point where we have Xboxes, PlayStations, and GameCubes now (and more on the way). The products have been "selected"--far more GameCubes are sold nowadays than Nintendos--resulting the "evolution" of the product. It's not natural, as is the evolution through natural selection of biological organisms, but it is a similar concept.