View Full Version : Wizard of ID

Karl A. Hilbert
12-20-2005, 12:04 PM
I am relieved as a teacher of science in PA.

"our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

Thank God! ;)

12-20-2005, 12:07 PM
I agree ... but missed where this occurred. Details ...?

12-20-2005, 12:11 PM

Billy Bones
12-20-2005, 12:12 PM
Hang on a minute. Define relieved.

12-20-2005, 12:15 PM
It happened in Pennsylvania.

12-20-2005, 12:17 PM
Liars revealed:

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.

Several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs, he 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.

Said the judge: "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."

Billy Bones
12-20-2005, 12:21 PM
Got it. Just saw the headline. Thought he might have meant he was relieved from his post for teaching ID. Wording was ambiguous.


Keith Wilson
12-20-2005, 12:23 PM
I expected no less, but I'm very relieved.

A Pennsylvania school district cannot require the teaching of intelligent design in high school biology classes, a federal judge ruled in a case that may influence other challenges to the theory of evolution. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, ruled today that the Dover, Pennsylvania school board can't force the teaching of intelligent design, a theory that claims that the universe is too complex to have developed randomly and must have been designed by a superior power. The board in October 2004 ordered that intelligent design be introduced alongside the theory that life evolved by natural selection. ``To preserve the separation of church and state'' mandated by the First Amendment, the Dover Area School District is barred from maintaining the ID policy in any school, Jones wrote.

Karl A. Hilbert
12-20-2005, 12:51 PM
Sorry Mr. Bones. I am "relieved as" not "relieved of". This controversy concerning education, science and philosophy was close to home. I find it down right spooky.

12-20-2005, 12:53 PM
Had I been forced to teach it, I might alternatively have "relieved on." ;)

12-20-2005, 01:05 PM
The judge's ruling is pretty in-depth and definitive. It not only rules that ID cannot be taught, it rules that ID is not science:

4. Whether ID is Science
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that
while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no
position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one
of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1)
ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting
supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID,
employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation
science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted
by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is
additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific
community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the
subject of testing and research.


ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent
evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. (5:41 (Pennock)). This
argument is not brought to this Court anew, and in fact, the same argument, termed
“contrived dualism” in McLean, was employed by creationists in the 1980's to
support “creation science.” The court in McLean noted the “fallacious pedagogy
of the two model approach” and that “[i]n efforts to establish ‘evidence’ in support
of creation science, the defendants relied upon the same false premise as the two
model approach . . . all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was proof in
support of creation science.” McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1267, 1269. We do not find
this false dichotomy any more availing to justify ID today than it was to justify
creation science two decades ago.

Bruce Taylor
12-20-2005, 01:16 PM

12-20-2005, 01:18 PM
Sorry about that. C&P from a .pdf document...

The judge also makes short work of the argument for "irreducible complexity". He mentions how testimony has discredited that argument with regards to the flagellum, to blood-clotting, and to the immune system. The evolution of all three through natural selection has been demonstrated as pplausible, even though the ID proponents claimed it was impossible.

It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science. I draw attention to the fact that the court heard all the top "experts" on ID, in detail, over a six week period - it wasn't SamF defending ID. But unlike a bilge debate with Sam, these witnesses had to answer questions, and had to undergo cross-examination without changing the subject or resorting to sarcasm. And they came up short. Their "theory" was shown to be baseless, and full of holes.

12-20-2005, 01:21 PM
"Contrived dualism;" that describes SamF's approach to materialism in a nutshell.

12-20-2005, 01:23 PM
Some more... can't resist... Sam must be cringing. :D

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.

12-20-2005, 01:28 PM
And the grand finale...

H. Conclusion

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

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.

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

12-20-2005, 05:10 PM
does King George know about this?

It's a hell of a theory,,,"it's all too confusing and complex,,there must be someone who understands it all cuz I don't"

[ 12-20-2005, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

Osborne Russel
12-21-2005, 01:36 AM
As conservatives we must find a way to curtail these frivolous lawsuits.

12-21-2005, 05:22 AM
Before someone starts raving about "activist liberal judges," note that this judge is a conservative Republican nominated by Bush...

12-21-2005, 05:49 AM
Two threads, with no one upset by the ruling. Pre-emptive strike, dottie?

12-21-2005, 06:30 AM
Oh, some people are upset, Donnie - you, for one. ;)

But they are not arguing, because they ran out of arguments.

In the bilge, the ID proponents could bait-and-switch, confuse the issue, change the subject, and ignore the hard questions. In court, they had to answer the questions. They couldn't. Their argument fell apart. They were shown to be intellectually dishonest. They were shown to be liars.

Sorry, Donnie. You lose, and we get to gloat all we want... tongue.gif

12-21-2005, 06:32 AM
Gloat all you like, dottie, but you're completely off-base. I don't think ID should be taught in science courses, and have never argued for it. It's religion, not science.

Joe (SoCal)
12-21-2005, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by Donn:
Gloat all you like, dottie, but you're completely off-base. I don't think ID should be taught in science courses, and have never argued for it. It's religion, not science.Donnkey is waiting to evolve intelligently from the single cell insulting grammarnazi to a multi organism compost heap in his yard. We all should pray for him :D

George Jung
12-21-2005, 11:22 AM
Nice 'Holiday Spirit tongue.gif ' there, Joe; where did that come from?