Creationist shenanigans part 439

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
As an agent of the government I must absolutely keep my own personal beliefs and my job separate.

Do you think this attitude should be equally applied? Meaning to things other than the evolution/creation issue? What about MMGW? What about XXX? What about YYY?


You see, I think none of it should be in the schools( except for open debate but not part of the curriculumn perse). The public school system is so full of this other BS that they are forgetting the basics. Maybe if we concentrated on the basics instead of agendas, we wouldn't have as many kids falling behind or struggling to keep up.

Not sure I follow entirely. Religious issues are a special case, covered by the constitution and a whole grunch of case law. Not to mention just being downright obvious.

What else should be axed from curriculum in your opinion? And why?

There are many outlooks on what public education is. A few of them are:

1. It's a tool of socialization - preparing people to become productive workers and members of society.
2. It's a tool to teach people how to think (not what) - logic and reason are at a premium.
3. It provides a common set of information from which a common culture is formed.
4. It imparts our current level of knowledge as a platform upon which to build us into the future.

Obviously you can hold to a combination of those. I'm strongly a mixture of 2 and 4. That's the path to progress in my opinion. As such, while we need a strong basis in logic, critical thinking, etc we also need to provide where that has led us thus far.

There is a lot to be said for splitting academics from socialization, especially in the area of trades/jobs. One of the reasons so many people fall behind is that we're trying to teach monkeys to be monet. Not everyone can master engineering, nor can everyone be an eloquent speaker. People aren't the same, they aren't an 'average', they have strengths and weaknesses. While everyone deserves a shot we have to abandon this idea that an 80iq would be mechanic should get a BS in EE and an MBA. Not only would this stop pressuring those who can't, it would allow us to foucs on those that can and help them excel rather than holding them back with all the retards.

No, it's not politically correct, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. A good academic curriculum is for those with some future in academics and advanced thought. There's no reason to train those people to be clock-punchers...that hurts the entire world. Likewise we could do a lot to help the world by providing good socialization options and workforce training for those who are likely going to be well suited to that. Of course you should keep options open for everyone to cross around as they are able, but that's the exception and not the rule. Maybe this idea would fit with your wanting to thin out the curriculum by focusing the training on the people receiving it.

I was asking you how far your statement goes. I have already stated that I don't believe creationism should be "taught" nor do I believe a great many things should be "taught" in our schools because many of them fall into the area of personal opinion.

As to your 1-4. That's great you see yourself as a 2&4. However, I had teachers/professors who claimed to be #2 but were caught time after time allowing opinion to manifest itself in their curriculum/teaching.

I agree with much or your further comments but we are straying a bit far from the thread purpose. I've posted quite a bit on my education stance over the years here but maybe it's time for a new public education thread since this one is about the OP's problem with those who don't think like him.

Yeah, i didn't want to derail, i was mostly interested if segregating students by education outcome would (in your opinion) alter what would be fitting within the curriculum.

Beyond that I'm trying to figure out the line of 'opinion'. I mean, you could argue that my belief that school has nothing to do with social acclimation or job preparation is an opinion and therefore my refusal to teach those aspect should not be accepted. Conversely, however, I could argue that anyone who thinks school is FOR those things is espousing an opinion and therefore shouldn't be allowed. Where is the line of opinion with regards to curriculum?

We know, as in absolute fact, that Columbus was a wretched asshole (by modern standards). Do we teach kids that? How about Lincoln? The racism of some of our 20th century presidents? Americas extraordinary abuses of foreign policy with regards to other nations? These things aren't opinion, they did happen. However, rather they should be taught, and how they should be approached, is opinion. So how exactly do we decide?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: purplehippo

The same can be said of your position. I just wanted to let others know there are opinions and other facts. True scientific study weighs all the evidence. As science advances and idea's are debunked more will be known. Theory is nothing more than a guess.

No, you're still wrong. Theories are not guesses and the same can not be said of my opinion. One side is logical conjecture based upon overwhelming observable evidence, and one is not. There are not "other" facts, there are merely the facts.

Well, there is this from dictionary.com:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
Just thought I'd share.

This is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

One of the focuses of this thread is "theory" as used in a scientific context, which falls under definitions 1 and 2 in your post.

Definitions 6 and 7 apply to "theory" as used in everyday life. For example, "I have a theory about Mary and Paul."

Evolution is a scientific theory, not an informal guess. For you to pretend that the latter applies to the former is disgusting.

Well thank you for clarifying. merriam webster might need a quick email to advise also.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: purplehippo

The same can be said of your position. I just wanted to let others know there are opinions and other facts. True scientific study weighs all the evidence. As science advances and idea's are debunked more will be known. Theory is nothing more than a guess.

No, you're still wrong. Theories are not guesses and the same can not be said of my opinion. One side is logical conjecture based upon overwhelming observable evidence, and one is not. There are not "other" facts, there are merely the facts.

Well, there is this from dictionary.com:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
Just thought I'd share.

This is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

One of the focuses of this thread is "theory" as used in a scientific context, which falls under definitions 1 and 2 in your post.

Definitions 6 and 7 apply to "theory" as used in everyday life. For example, "I have a theory about Mary and Paul."

Evolution is a scientific theory, not an informal guess. For you to pretend that the latter applies to the former is disgusting.

Well thank you for clarifying. merriam webster might need a quick email to advise also.

Einstein's theory of relativity is just a guess in your warped worldview?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: purplehippo

The same can be said of your position. I just wanted to let others know there are opinions and other facts. True scientific study weighs all the evidence. As science advances and idea's are debunked more will be known. Theory is nothing more than a guess.

No, you're still wrong. Theories are not guesses and the same can not be said of my opinion. One side is logical conjecture based upon overwhelming observable evidence, and one is not. There are not "other" facts, there are merely the facts.

Well, there is this from dictionary.com:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
Just thought I'd share.

This is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

One of the focuses of this thread is "theory" as used in a scientific context, which falls under definitions 1 and 2 in your post.

Definitions 6 and 7 apply to "theory" as used in everyday life. For example, "I have a theory about Mary and Paul."

Evolution is a scientific theory, not an informal guess. For you to pretend that the latter applies to the former is disgusting.

Well thank you for clarifying. merriam webster might need a quick email to advise also.

Einstein's theory of relativity is just a guess in your warped worldview?

Obviously not, since shira so elequently qualified each definition of the word AND it's application. See, thats why I love you guys. When a definition of something is given, you guys actually KNOW what it REALLY means. It's a secret key. You cant really argue with shira on that.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Obviously not, since shira so elequently qualified each definition of the word AND it's application. See, thats why I love you guys. When a definition of something is given, you guys actually KNOW what it REALLY means. It's a secret key. You cant really argue with shira on that.

Most people wouldn't think that your situation calls for sarcasm... on your part, anyway. You didn't know what a scientific theory was, and based on your lack of knowledge claimed that well-accepted scientific theories, like the theory of evolution, are nothing but guesswork. You should be ashamed not to just own up to your many failures at this point.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Obviously not, since shira so elequently qualified each definition of the word AND it's application. See, thats why I love you guys. When a definition of something is given, you guys actually KNOW what it REALLY means. It's a secret key. You cant really argue with shira on that.

Most people wouldn't think that your situation calls for sarcasm... on your part, anyway. You didn't know what a scientific theory was, and based on your lack of knowledge claimed that well-accepted scientific theories, like the theory of evolution, are nothing but guesswork. You should be ashamed not to just own up to your many failures at this point.

Holy fuck have you talked to my psyche? You sure seem to know me pretty well...the way you see right through me ON TEH INTERWEB!

You read things the way you want to *shrug* I couldnt care less lol it's a forum, and does any of our opinions matter to anyone else? For the most part no. But it IS great entertainment yes? At this point we're arguing semantics and nitpicking which frankly bores me. You think Im wrong? Fine. Im wrong. *shrug* Youre the second person who has owned me on P&N tonite! Feels good doesnt it? (BTW youre still full of shit, but I'll concede).

And for the record. I would probably issue a sarcastic remark if my brother died. It's how I am.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: purplehippo

The same can be said of your position. I just wanted to let others know there are opinions and other facts. True scientific study weighs all the evidence. As science advances and idea's are debunked more will be known. Theory is nothing more than a guess.

No, you're still wrong. Theories are not guesses and the same can not be said of my opinion. One side is logical conjecture based upon overwhelming observable evidence, and one is not. There are not "other" facts, there are merely the facts.

Well, there is this from dictionary.com:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
Just thought I'd share.

This is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

One of the focuses of this thread is "theory" as used in a scientific context, which falls under definitions 1 and 2 in your post.

Definitions 6 and 7 apply to "theory" as used in everyday life. For example, "I have a theory about Mary and Paul."

Evolution is a scientific theory, not an informal guess. For you to pretend that the latter applies to the former is disgusting.

Well thank you for clarifying. merriam webster might need a quick email to advise also.

You didn't need "clarification." and that wasn't my intent. You knew exactly what you were doing. I called you on your slimy intellectual standards, and this latest response of yours is merely defensive posturing.

What wit you have.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
As an agent of the government I must absolutely keep my own personal beliefs and my job separate.

Do you think this attitude should be equally applied? Meaning to things other than the evolution/creation issue? What about MMGW? What about XXX? What about YYY?


You see, I think none of it should be in the schools( except for open debate but not part of the curriculumn perse). The public school system is so full of this other BS that they are forgetting the basics. Maybe if we concentrated on the basics instead of agendas, we wouldn't have as many kids falling behind or struggling to keep up.

Not sure I follow entirely. Religious issues are a special case, covered by the constitution and a whole grunch of case law. Not to mention just being downright obvious.

What else should be axed from curriculum in your opinion? And why?

There are many outlooks on what public education is. A few of them are:

1. It's a tool of socialization - preparing people to become productive workers and members of society.
2. It's a tool to teach people how to think (not what) - logic and reason are at a premium.
3. It provides a common set of information from which a common culture is formed.
4. It imparts our current level of knowledge as a platform upon which to build us into the future.

Obviously you can hold to a combination of those. I'm strongly a mixture of 2 and 4. That's the path to progress in my opinion. As such, while we need a strong basis in logic, critical thinking, etc we also need to provide where that has led us thus far.

There is a lot to be said for splitting academics from socialization, especially in the area of trades/jobs. One of the reasons so many people fall behind is that we're trying to teach monkeys to be monet. Not everyone can master engineering, nor can everyone be an eloquent speaker. People aren't the same, they aren't an 'average', they have strengths and weaknesses. While everyone deserves a shot we have to abandon this idea that an 80iq would be mechanic should get a BS in EE and an MBA. Not only would this stop pressuring those who can't, it would allow us to foucs on those that can and help them excel rather than holding them back with all the retards.

No, it's not politically correct, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. A good academic curriculum is for those with some future in academics and advanced thought. There's no reason to train those people to be clock-punchers...that hurts the entire world. Likewise we could do a lot to help the world by providing good socialization options and workforce training for those who are likely going to be well suited to that. Of course you should keep options open for everyone to cross around as they are able, but that's the exception and not the rule. Maybe this idea would fit with your wanting to thin out the curriculum by focusing the training on the people receiving it.

I was asking you how far your statement goes. I have already stated that I don't believe creationism should be "taught" nor do I believe a great many things should be "taught" in our schools because many of them fall into the area of personal opinion.

As to your 1-4. That's great you see yourself as a 2&4. However, I had teachers/professors who claimed to be #2 but were caught time after time allowing opinion to manifest itself in their curriculum/teaching.

I agree with much or your further comments but we are straying a bit far from the thread purpose. I've posted quite a bit on my education stance over the years here but maybe it's time for a new public education thread since this one is about the OP's problem with those who don't think like him.

Yeah, i didn't want to derail, i was mostly interested if segregating students by education outcome would (in your opinion) alter what would be fitting within the curriculum.

Beyond that I'm trying to figure out the line of 'opinion'. I mean, you could argue that my belief that school has nothing to do with social acclimation or job preparation is an opinion and therefore my refusal to teach those aspect should not be accepted. Conversely, however, I could argue that anyone who thinks school is FOR those things is espousing an opinion and therefore shouldn't be allowed. Where is the line of opinion with regards to curriculum?

We know, as in absolute fact, that Columbus was a wretched asshole (by modern standards). Do we teach kids that? How about Lincoln? The racism of some of our 20th century presidents? Americas extraordinary abuses of foreign policy with regards to other nations? These things aren't opinion, they did happen. However, rather they should be taught, and how they should be approached, is opinion. So how exactly do we decide?

And there in lies the problem. People's view of the public school has changed dramatically over the years and now there really is no control or even rationality in much of what they do.

But as to your first question - yes. You are in school to learn. After kids get the basics down(lets just say 3rd grade) then all progress is measured by actual outcome - not age. It's the only way that doesn't hold people back or push them too hard. Screw that happy hippie hooey about social bonding. It'll happen no matter how you allow kids to progress. The nerds will still be nerds and the bullies will still be bullies and the jocks will still be jocks. Basing things on actual output would be the best thing that's happened to the education system since... well probably ever.(a close second would be ridding it of the NEA but that even further off subject )

 

[piasabird]

That link would qualify as hate speech.

The question is, "How come we have a bunch of extinct animals?"

Guess Evolution is just a big lie for them.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: shira
You didn't need "clarification." and that wasn't my intent. You knew exactly what you were doing. I called you on your slimy intellectual standards, and this latest response of yours is merely defensive posturing.

What wit you have.

Why do you have a problem with people who have a differing opinion than yours? Are you that hateful and closed minded? Slimy intellectual standards? Hardly. Its my opinion. To think that a differing opinion than yours is a slimy intellectual standard just shows your own egotistical shallow mindedness. I dont mean to sounds like Moonbeam, but Jesus. Let people think independently.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I have a problem when a group conspire to use their elected office in an abuse of power to indoctrinate (brainwash)children into their group hallucination. Remember the "Dark Ages", a thousand years of Christian Theocratic Rule?

edit; just to get back on topic and off the argument of what "IS" is.

 

[manowar821]

Fabricated religious teachings are NOT EDUCATION, FACT, OR SCIENCE.

I cannot believe some of you people (I hold tech forum folk on a higher regard than most of the Internet, so sue me, you people are supposed to be fucking logical) actually sympathise with or even consider the idea of offering creationists a place at the education-board "table", so to speak..

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: shira
You didn't need "clarification." and that wasn't my intent. You knew exactly what you were doing. I called you on your slimy intellectual standards, and this latest response of yours is merely defensive posturing.

What wit you have.

Why do you have a problem with people who have a differing opinion than yours? Are you that hateful and closed minded? Slimy intellectual standards? Hardly. Its my opinion. To think that a differing opinion than yours is a slimy intellectual standard just shows your own egotistical shallow mindedness. I dont mean to sounds like Moonbeam, but Jesus. Let people think independently.

So do we. Except ours is based on Reason and proper use of Definition.

 

[jonks]

I love reading the Republican GWB appointed Judge who smacked down a PA schoolboard attempt to instill Intelligent Design in school science curriculum.

Article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/

Judge's ruling: (long but so worth it. Just read the conclusion if time starved)http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/ms...220_kitzmiller_342.pdf

"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."

"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."

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

"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."

"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."

Thanks for that. The quote is from the Conclusions section of the judge's opinion. I'd add the first two paragraphs of his conclusions, as well:

[/b]H. Conclusion[/b]

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.

The judge's conclusions address the distractive "issues" raised in this thread by those who would impose creationism on the science curriculum in public schools and identifies "Intelligent Design" (ID) as nothing more than the same religious dogma under another name.

He did not question the sincerity of the Pennsylvania board members' beliefs, and he did not say the ideas should not be discussed, at all. He said:

1. The theory of evolution represents good science, that it 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.
   
2. ID/creationism is not good science, and it 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.
   
3. Doing so would violate the "Establishement Clause" of the U.S. Constitution.

Amen! :thumbsup:

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

In 100 years we will be looking back at all of this and laughing.

I must say this thread made me waste a good 1hr at work today, a very entertaining and educational read. What I take away from all of this is essentially what I thought coming into this thread, creationists and those who argue for its support in the public school system don't have solid ground to stand on in this debate. Thanks to the many posters on here who really took the time to pick apart the ID debate piece by piece and expose it for the fraudulent science that it claims to be.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: sirjonk

"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."

"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."

Thanks for that. The quote is from the Conclusions section of the judge's opinion. I'd add the first two paragraphs of his conclusions, as well:

[/b]H. Conclusion[/b]

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.

The judge's conclusions address the distractive "issues" raised in this thread by those who would impose creationism on the science curriculum in public schools and identifies "Intelligent Design" (ID) as nothing more than the same religious dogma under another name.

He did not question the sincerity of the Pennsylvania board members' beliefs, and he did not say the ideas should not be discussed, at all. He said:

1. The theory of evolution represents good science, that it 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.
   
2. ID/creationism is not good science, and it 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.
   
3. Doing so would violate the "Establishement Clause" of the U.S. Constitution.

Amen! :thumbsup:

"Breathtaking inanity" might be the best way to describe this debate. :thumbsup:

 

[spittledip]

I am indifferent to this whole bit o' crap. I don't think it is dangerous to teach either idea in school. However, I do find it quite ironic that those who are so against indoctrination don't want ideas other than their own (in regard to evolution/creationism) being taught in schools.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spittledip
I am indifferent to this whole bit o' crap. I don't think it is dangerous to teach either idea in school. However, I do find it quite ironic that those who are so against indoctrination don't want ideas other than their own (in regard to evolution/creationism) being taught in schools.

That argument doesn't hold water though. Why is it dangerous to teach what is objectively true? Evolution sits on top of such a huge mountain of evidence that it is incredibly difficult to imagine why you would think it is 'dangerous' for people to learn about it. Furthermore it is the foundation for all of modern biology, to not teach it would consign American students to complete ignorance on one of the largest branches of science, and it would necessitate remedial courses for all of our students upon reaching college just so they could catch back up. And for what reason?

Teaching someone evolution in our schools is indoctrination in the same way that teaching someone about gravity is indoctrinating them. If you want to call teaching the most accurate information that science can determine, whatever that may be, then by all means indoctrinate away.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: spittledip
I am indifferent to this whole bit o' crap. I don't think it is dangerous to teach either idea in school. However, I do find it quite ironic that those who are so against indoctrination don't want ideas other than their own (in regard to evolution/creationism) being taught in schools.

That is where you are completely wrong.

Those against it are not against it because of what it is....but where it is attempting to be taught. You can teach ID all you want, in a "Religious Philosophy - 101" class. But it has zero place in a science class.

There is no more irony in wanting to keep religion out of science than there is wanting to keep phys ed out of geometry.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spittledip
I am indifferent to this whole bit o' crap. I don't think it is dangerous to teach either idea in school. However, I do find it quite ironic that those who are so against indoctrination don't want ideas other than their own (in regard to evolution/creationism) being taught in schools.

That argument doesn't hold water though. Why is it dangerous to teach what is objectively true? Evolution sits on top of such a huge mountain of evidence that it is incredibly difficult to imagine why you would think it is 'dangerous' for people to learn about it. Furthermore it is the foundation for all of modern biology, to not teach it would consign American students to complete ignorance on one of the largest branches of science, and it would necessitate remedial courses for all of our students upon reaching college just so they could catch back up. And for what reason?

Teaching someone evolution in our schools is indoctrination in the same way that teaching someone about gravity is indoctrinating them. If you want to call teaching the most accurate information that science can determine, whatever that may be, then by all means indoctrinate away.

I didn't say teaching evolution was dangerous... not sure where you got that from.

And it is indoctrination if it is something that is taught exclusively and there are other theories out there that can be verified as theory via evidence.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: spittledip
I am indifferent to this whole bit o' crap. I don't think it is dangerous to teach either idea in school. However, I do find it quite ironic that those who are so against indoctrination don't want ideas other than their own (in regard to evolution/creationism) being taught in schools.

That is where you are completely wrong.

Those against it are not against it because of what it is....but where it is attempting to be taught. You can teach ID all you want, in a "Religious Philosophy - 101" class. But it has zero place in a science class.

There is no more irony in wanting to keep religion out of science than there is wanting to keep phys ed out of geometry.

If they use empirical means to validate it, then science class seems ok. But who cares? No need to piss oneself over these things. Just science class, not a big deal. Just evolution and ID, not big deal.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: spittledip
And it is indoctrination if it is something that is taught exclusively and there are other theories out there that can be verified as theory via evidence.

Exactly, you make the point. There is ZERO evidence for ID. As Bobby Henderson, high priest of Pastafarianism, puts it:

"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spittledip

I didn't say teaching evolution was dangerous... not sure where you got that from.

And it is indoctrination if it is something that is taught exclusively and there are other theories out there that can be verified as theory via evidence.

Whoops, I misread what you typed... my mistake.

You are right that if there were viable alternatives that were being ignored that it would be indoctrination. In this case however no such viable alternative exists. There is literally zero evidence for intelligent design. Not only is there no such evidence, but none can ever exist. (short of god coming down and saying 'hi') This is because ID makes no claims that can be experimentally verified and it makes no predictions that can be tested.

So if you want school to teach theories that are verified via evidence, you cannot support the teaching of intelligent design.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spittledip
I am indifferent to this whole bit o' crap. I don't think it is dangerous to teach either idea in school. However, I do find it quite ironic that those who are so against indoctrination don't want ideas other than their own (in regard to evolution/creationism) being taught in schools.

That argument doesn't hold water though. Why is it dangerous to teach what is objectively true? Evolution sits on top of such a huge mountain of evidence that it is incredibly difficult to imagine why you would think it is 'dangerous' for people to learn about it. Furthermore it is the foundation for all of modern biology, to not teach it would consign American students to complete ignorance on one of the largest branches of science, and it would necessitate remedial courses for all of our students upon reaching college just so they could catch back up. And for what reason?

Teaching someone evolution in our schools is indoctrination in the same way that teaching someone about gravity is indoctrinating them. If you want to call teaching the most accurate information that science can determine, whatever that may be, then by all means indoctrinate away.

I didn't say teaching evolution was dangerous... not sure where you got that from.

And it is indoctrination if it is something that is taught exclusively and there are other theories out there that can be verified as theory via evidence.

But there are not other theories that can be taught to counter evolution. There are some slight differences being hammered out within the broader scope of evolution, but nothing major and nothing that would be taught in at a HS level.

Just science class, not a big deal. Just evolution and ID, not big deal.

It is a big deal. Do you want America's children to be behind the rest of the world when it comes to learning about how life came to be what it is today, especially if it is the basis of all modern biology? There is no need to teach fairy tales that are unverifiable (ID - since you cannot prove or disprove an "intelligent designer") and NOT science. To teach anything but science in a science class through a HS, you'd dilute the meaning of what science really is.