PDA

View Full Version : Intelligent design[ers] bite the dust.



Qtec
12-21-2005, 07:21 AM
Teaching of 'Intelligent Design' is outlawed
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Published: 21 December 2005
The campaign to try to force schools in the United States to teach an alternative to Darwinism has suffered a severe set-back after a judge ruled that to do so was a violation of the constitution.

The judge also said that proponents of so-called Intelligent Design had repeatedly lied about the religious convictions that drove them.

In a ruling that will reverberate in schools across the country, US District Judge John Jones ruled the Dover school board in Pennsylvania had been wrong to insist that a statement about Intelligent Design (ID) be read to pupils during biology lessons. He said such a policy represented "breathtaking inanity". <font color="blue"> Wow! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif </font color>

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the board who voted for the ID Policy," the judge wrote in a 139-page opinion, following a six-week trial. "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."

The ruling is a blow Christian conservatives who in more than 30 states across the US have been pressing for the teaching of Creationism. Some of the members of the Dover school board which voted for the measure were fundamentalist Christians. A number of those members were ousted in an election last month and the president of the new school board said it was unlikely that they would appeal the judge's ruling.


These guys are fanatics. I dont think they will give up that easily. Do you?

Q.....there is still hope /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Chopstick
12-21-2005, 07:32 AM
There is no Theory of Evolution or Intelligent design. There is only a list of creatures that I allow to live. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Merry Xmas MoonBat /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Qtec
12-21-2005, 07:50 AM
LOL. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

"Merry Xmas", can you say that? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q. Why is it ok to say 'happy St Patrick's day" and saying " Merry Christmas" not?
We wouldnt have a holiday on Dec 25 if it wasnt JC's birthday, right?
I say, if you dont like it, dont take the day off!

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fran Crimi
12-21-2005, 07:55 AM
Alternatively, it has been allowed as an elective course under the category of Sociology.

That seems to make sense for now. The scientists have yet to present their case. They're still working on it. It's a bit premature to try to force the theory as mandatory.

Fran

moblsv
12-21-2005, 08:08 AM
the "theory" of evolution is a sound scientific theory, just like gravity.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/11/2/quicktime/e_s_1.html

Having ID in Sociology is a possible solution ONLY if it is part of a more broad course in the myths, superstitions and religions of the *ENTIRE* world. NOT JUST CHRISTIANITY

Gayle in MD
12-21-2005, 09:04 AM
Tap Tap Tap!

Gayle in Md.

SnakebyteXX
12-21-2005, 10:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>
The scientists have yet to present their case. They're still working on it. It's a bit premature to try to force the theory as mandatory.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

A key difference in the lay versus scientific interpretation of the word 'theory' lies at the heart of this ongoing controversy. Lay people tend to think (incorrectly) that 'theory' means 'hypothesis'. This is NOT what the scientific community means when using the term.

Time after time attacks on the 'theory' of evolution are mounted on the basis of this un-scientific interpretation of the term.

Think in terms of well established scientific theories such as Pasteur's Germ Theory (http://img306.imageshack.us/img306/9301/cid509613bf6e1b415ca19012752bc.jpg) or the Theory of Gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity) and imagine challenging EITHER theory on the basis of the lay interpretation of the word. It wouldn't fly anymore than the ongoing attack on the 'Theory' of Evolution.

Snake

Fran Crimi
12-21-2005, 11:37 AM
Well, yes and no. Logic is mathematics-based. Theories that can be presented through logic can also be credible until they can be logically disproven. The logical probablity that something can occur is a legitimate measurement.

I just don't think that anything of that sort has been officially presented yet with regard to intelligent design, but I have no doubt that in due time it will.

Fran

JPB
12-21-2005, 12:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Alternatively, it has been allowed as an elective course under the category of Sociology.

That seems to make sense for now. The scientists have yet to present their case. They're still working on it. It's a bit premature to try to force the theory as mandatory.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>


What???? The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and cannot be seriously disputed. Of course, some piece of knowledge or evidence could change that, but the odds are that it won't. Why? Because the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. No matter how many mystics hold their hands over their ears, close their eyes, and hum hoping for the myth they believe to be right. And of course, a scientist whose name I forget admitted that evolution could be disproven. He just told the mystics to find a rabbit fossil from the pre cambrian period. They haven't found one needless to say. There just isn't evidence for the creation myths. It is just scary for people to look at evolution and see what that implies. Ironically, it is scary because of how our brains evolved, LOL.

Deeman3
12-21-2005, 12:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote JPB:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Alternatively, it has been allowed as an elective course under the category of Sociology.

That seems to make sense for now. The scientists have yet to present their case. They're still working on it. It's a bit premature to try to force the theory as mandatory.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>


What???? The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and cannot be seriously disputed. Of course, some piece of knowledge or evidence could change that, but the odds are that it won't. Why? Because the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. No matter how many mystics hold their hands over their ears, close their eyes, and hum hoping for the myth they believe to be right. And of course, a scientist whose name I forget admitted that evolution could be disproven. He just told the mystics to find a rabbit fossil from the pre cambrian period. They haven't found one needless to say. There just isn't evidence for the creation myths. It is just scary for people to look at evolution and see what that implies. Ironically, it is scary because of how our brains evolved, LOL.

<hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> While I don't support intellegent design, I do think it is almost funny how "scientists" take this approach that they only beleive what they can prove and explain. Of course, some of the most basic of our laws can't be explained in "how it happens" terms, only in observational views. Science now "accepts black holes, the big bang and many other theories because their observations lead them to beleive these are the most plauable explainations. Were they here for the big bang, is the evidence, background radiation, really enough to convince us that all matter was ina space of less than a few cubic meters? Is string theory a good explaination of why quantum mechanics and normal physics can't be reconciled? Scientists a few hundred years ago would scoff at many ideas but would swear by science that is completely outdated. It'll be the same in another 100 years.


Deeman </font color>

catscradle
12-21-2005, 12:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote JPB:</font><hr> What???? The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and cannot be seriously disputed. ... <hr /></blockquote>

All things MUST be seriously disputed though used until a better explaination is forthcoming.

"The gods did not reveal, from the beginning,
all things to us, but in the course of time
through seeking we may learn and know things better.
But as for certain truth, no man has known it,
nor shall he know it, neither of the gods
nor yet of all things of which I speak.
For even if by chance he were to utter
the final truth, he would himself not know it:
for all is but a woven web of guesses."
Xenothanes - sometime BC (or BCE if you're more politically correct than I am)

Chopstick
12-21-2005, 01:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote JPB:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Alternatively, it has been allowed as an elective course under the category of Sociology.

That seems to make sense for now. The scientists have yet to present their case. They're still working on it. It's a bit premature to try to force the theory as mandatory.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>


What???? The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and cannot be seriously disputed. Of course, some piece of knowledge or evidence could change that, but the odds are that it won't. Why? Because the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. No matter how many mystics hold their hands over their ears, close their eyes, and hum hoping for the myth they believe to be right. And of course, a scientist whose name I forget admitted that evolution could be disproven. He just told the mystics to find a rabbit fossil from the pre cambrian period. They haven't found one needless to say. There just isn't evidence for the creation myths. It is just scary for people to look at evolution and see what that implies. Ironically, it is scary because of how our brains evolved, LOL.

<hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> While I don't support intellegent design, I do think it is almost funny how "scientists" take this approach that they only beleive what they can prove and explain. Of course, some of the most basic of our laws can't be explained in "how it happens" terms, only in observational views. Science now "accepts black holes, the big bang and many other theories because their observations lead them to beleive these are the most plauable explainations. Were they here for the big bang, is the evidence, background radiation, really enough to convince us that all matter was ina space of less than a few cubic meters? Is string theory a good explaination of why quantum mechanics and normal physics can't be reconciled? Scientists a few hundred years ago would scoff at many ideas but would swear by science that is completely outdated. It'll be the same in another 100 years.


Deeman </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Well Deeman, here's some logic for ya. If the universe is infinite then knowledge of the universe is also infinite. Therefore the pursuit of knowledge of the universe is an infinite undertaking. Now infinity has numerical property that I think applies to this situation. The number 3 brazillian </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif <font color="blue">is exactly the same distance from infinity as the number one. Which means that no matter how far you carry the pursuit of knowledge, you will be no closer to the ultimate answer than you are right now.

So, it all boils down to this simple algorithm.

IF
it does not catch a fish
OR
it does not hit a golf ball further
OR
it won't make me run 100 balls
THEN
I do not care</font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Deeman3
12-21-2005, 02:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Chopstick:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote JPB:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Alternatively, it has been allowed as an elective course under the category of Sociology.

That seems to make sense for now. The scientists have yet to present their case. They're still working on it. It's a bit premature to try to force the theory as mandatory.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>


What???? The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and cannot be seriously disputed. Of course, some piece of knowledge or evidence could change that, but the odds are that it won't. Why? Because the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. No matter how many mystics hold their hands over their ears, close their eyes, and hum hoping for the myth they believe to be right. And of course, a scientist whose name I forget admitted that evolution could be disproven. He just told the mystics to find a rabbit fossil from the pre cambrian period. They haven't found one needless to say. There just isn't evidence for the creation myths. It is just scary for people to look at evolution and see what that implies. Ironically, it is scary because of how our brains evolved, LOL.

<hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> While I don't support intellegent design, I do think it is almost funny how "scientists" take this approach that they only beleive what they can prove and explain. Of course, some of the most basic of our laws can't be explained in "how it happens" terms, only in observational views. Science now "accepts black holes, the big bang and many other theories because their observations lead them to beleive these are the most plauable explainations. Were they here for the big bang, is the evidence, background radiation, really enough to convince us that all matter was ina space of less than a few cubic meters? Is string theory a good explaination of why quantum mechanics and normal physics can't be reconciled? Scientists a few hundred years ago would scoff at many ideas but would swear by science that is completely outdated. It'll be the same in another 100 years.


Deeman </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Well Deeman, here's some logic for ya. If the universe is infinite then knowledge of the universe is also infinite. Therefore the pursuit of knowledge of the universe is an infinite undertaking. Now infinity has numerical property that I think applies to this situation. The number 3 brazillian </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif <font color="blue">is exactly the same distance from infinity as the number one. Which means that no matter how far you carry the pursuit of knowledge, you will be no closer to the ultimate answer than you are right now.

So, it all boils down to this simple algorithm.

IF
it does not catch a fish
OR
it does not hit a golf ball further
OR
it won't make me run 100 balls
THEN
I do not care</font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Chop,

I like your last formula but believe we all have to die to get the real answers to our questions. I'm just not curious enough at the moment to push that process. Another 9,234 bar-be-ques and I'll be ready.

McDonalds Hamburgers, 450 billions served, 2,141 digested... </font color>

Deeman
there better be life after death or I've been hagin' out 25 years too many for nothin'

JPB
12-21-2005, 04:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote catscradle:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote JPB:</font><hr> What???? The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and cannot be seriously disputed. ... <hr /></blockquote>

All things MUST be seriously disputed though used until a better explaination is forthcoming.

<hr /></blockquote>


ID is not a serious dispute. There is no evolution/ID debate. There is only controversy because the ID people howl enough and some people believe them. Evolution can be disputed scientifically and certain issues are disputed within the science. Like the question of gravity. Nobody questions whether gravity exists, but there is dispute about how it works. ID is just mysticism. Nothing more.

pooltchr
12-21-2005, 05:11 PM
From what I understand, the ruling stated that ID could not be taught in a science class, based on the idea that ID doesn't have a scientific foundation.

Here's something to think about....why can't both be correct? Who is to say that the way we evolved isn't part of God's master plan? I don't think you have to rule out one possibility to support the other.

Steve

JPB
12-21-2005, 05:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> From what I understand, the ruling stated that ID could not be taught in a science class, based on the idea that ID doesn't have a scientific foundation.

Here's something to think about....why can't both be correct? Who is to say that the way we evolved isn't part of God's master plan? I don't think you have to rule out one possibility to support the other.

Steve <hr /></blockquote>


Both can conceivably be correct, although the odds against a given creation myth are very high. This is why there will never be a resolution as long as people are religious. Because no matter what science proves, a religious person can always just say "Well, God made it that way." This is why there can be no debate, one side can always just by fiat change the discussion. ID is religion repackaged. Teach it at home if you must. Leave it out of science class.

wolfdancer
12-21-2005, 06:25 PM
I have copied all this from other sites...'cept for the last paragraph.....can one acquire traits during one's life that can be passed on to the next generation? Like say, an Archie Manning passing on, passing skills......
I thought the "nvertebrate paleontology" interesting....I'll look it up tomorrow.....

"I guess the point was that, in totalitarian countries, what is taught as
"science" may be taught because it fits with the ideology, rather than
with reality. Lysenko's theories were popular with the Communists because
they supported Marx's idea that people can be perfected. If organisms,
including humans, inherit acquired characteristics, then they could be
molded and changed and thus perfected. OTOH, if Mendelian genetics is
correct and organisms are random combinations of the qualities of their
forebears (not just parents, because of recessive genes), then there is
less hope for perfecting people.

This is also one of the roots of the battles between folks like Stephen
J. Gould and the extreme adaptationists like Richard Dawkins. To Gould
and his crowd, what Dawkins, David Dennett, E. O. Wilson, etc., are
saying is that people are essentially entirely determined/limited by
their genes: they are their DNA, no more, no less. That sticks in Gould's
craw, perhaps partly because he is a Marxist, but it also bothers a lot
of other people who are NOT Marxists. (Dawkins, et al, are fond of using
the "Marxist" label to bash Gould, ignoring the hundreds/thousands of
non-Marxist biologists who agree with him. Character assassination is,
unfortunately, not unknown in science.)

&gt;Be assured that in my
&gt;education in that "communist" place of Hungary,
&gt;in the sixties and seventies
&gt;I had never heard the name of Lysenko,
&gt;but heard of Darwin fairly extensively.

You came after the Lysenko period, when the Soviet Union was trying very
hard to catch up to the West in genetics and agricultural research. Also,
Lysenko did not necessarily contradict Darwin! Darwin's theory &amp;
contribution was a mechanism for _evolution_, natural selection. Darwin
never came up with a definitive idea of a _mechanism_ for inheritance.
IIRC, Darwin essentially supported a view that the various organs of the
body secreted tiny bits of stuff that accumulated in the egg and sperm.
The fertilized egg, then, had a bit of each organ that just grew. Lysenko
didn't reject Darwin--he rejected Mendelian genetics.
he Soviet Union's agricultural policies were for many years under the
&gt; sway of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (1898-1976). He was Director of the
&gt; Institute of Genetics of the Soviet Academy of Sciences 1940-1964, and,
&gt; more important, president of the Lenin Academy of Agricultural Science
&gt; 1938-1956 and 1961-1962. In that position, with the planned economy of
&gt; the Soviet Union, Lysenko was the scientific and administrative head of
&gt; all Soviet agriculture during a critical period including WWII. Lysenko
&gt; believed in the inheritance of environmentally acquired characteristics
&gt; (sometimes called Lamarckism--see below), rejecting Mendelian genetics as
&gt; "bourgeois." Lysenko dubbed his critics "Trotskyite bandits" and "enemies
&gt; of the state." As he put ideology above science, he became a favorite of
&gt; Stalin and used his influence to silence (read "do away with") his
&gt; critics. One of Lysenko's most prominent and vocal opponents, scientific
&gt; geneticist Nikolai Vavilov, died of malnutrition in prison in 1942. By
&gt; 1936, Lysenko essentially controlled Soviet agriculture. His notable lack
&gt; of success over the next 20 years didn't seem to deter him or shake his
&gt; faith, nor did it seem to bother Stalin. After Stalin's death in 1953,
&gt; Krushchev gradually wrested control of Soviet agriculture from Lysenko,
&gt; though, by that time, he had been in power so long that there were few
&gt; non-Lysenkoist geneticists to be found. It took a long time for the
&gt; Soviets to recover from the disaster of Lysenkoism.
&gt;
&gt; The connection with Lamarck comes from Lysenko's belief in the
&gt; inheritance of environmentally acquired characteristics. As Stephen J.
&gt; Gould has written several times, Lamarck has received a lot of bad press
&gt; for this, which he does not deserve. (Indeed, the comment that elicited
&gt; your "what?" SHOULD have referenced Lysenko instead of Lamarck.)
&gt;
&gt; Chevalier de Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet Lamarck (1744-1829)
&gt; was a very important naturalist. Professional biologists &amp;
&gt; paleontologists recognize his contributions, calling him the founder of
&gt; invertebrate paleontology. He was the first to define the classes
&gt; Annelida, Arachnida, Crustacea, Infusoria, and Tunicata. He was an early
&gt; proponent of evolution (published in "Systeme des Animaux sans Vertebres"
&gt; in 1801), in which he asserted that all organisms are the result of an
&gt; on-going process of gradual change throughout the eons of geological
&gt; history. He based this on a theory that new traits develop in organisms
&gt; because of environmental pressures (the classic example is giraffes'
&gt; necks stretching as they reached for high leaves), then are passed on to
&gt; their offspring. While some folks pooh-pooh this now, it should be viewed
&gt; in the context of his time. That was *57 years* before Darwin and Wallace
&gt; presented their papers on natural selection to the Linnaean Society. It
&gt; should be remembered that Darwin did NOT "invent" the concept of
&gt; evolution. Not only Lamarck, but Darwin's own grandfather, Erasmus
&gt; Darwin, expounded theories of evolution near the end of the 18th Century."
-----------------------
And of course then there was Lamarkian Inheritance:

web page (http://home.nycap.rr.com/useless/kammerer/)

If a tadpole can become a frog...why can't a frog become a Prince, or a Frenchman?

Chopstick
12-22-2005, 09:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote JPB:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> From what I understand, the ruling stated that ID could not be taught in a science class, based on the idea that ID doesn't have a scientific foundation.

Here's something to think about....why can't both be correct? Who is to say that the way we evolved isn't part of God's master plan? I don't think you have to rule out one possibility to support the other.

Steve <hr /></blockquote>


Both can conceivably be correct, although the odds against a given creation myth are very high. This is why there will never be a resolution as long as people are religious. Because no matter what science proves, a religious person can always just say "Well, God made it that way." This is why there can be no debate, one side can always just by fiat change the discussion. ID is religion repackaged. Teach it at home if you must. Leave it out of science class.
<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">When are they going to start teaching science in church? Sounds silly doesn't it. Why is that notion any more silly than teaching ID in science class? </font color>

wolfdancer
12-22-2005, 10:24 AM
Since religion is based on faith......a strong belief that requires no proof.....it can not be debated successfully, with
a person of strong religious convictions.
It was only a few short years ago, relatively speaking,1633, that they imprisoned....house arrest, Galileo for daring to suggest that the earth was not the center of the universe.
So maybe in a couple hundred more years.....

catscradle
12-22-2005, 10:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote JPB:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote catscradle:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote JPB:</font><hr> What???? The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and cannot be seriously disputed. ... <hr /></blockquote>

All things MUST be seriously disputed though used until a better explaination is forthcoming.

<hr /></blockquote>


ID is not a serious dispute. There is no evolution/ID debate. There is only controversy because the ID people howl enough and some people believe them. Evolution can be disputed scientifically and certain issues are disputed within the science. Like the question of gravity. Nobody questions whether gravity exists, but there is dispute about how it works. ID is just mysticism. Nothing more. <hr /></blockquote>

I don't argue with any of that. Just question your statement about evolution cannot seriously be disputed. It coincides with what we as humans can observe and as such is the working explaination we must proceed with, but there is nothing to insure that our observations are reliable other than the fact that it is all we have. A schizophrenic (sp.) also believes his observations are valid.

Deeman3
12-22-2005, 10:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> So maybe in a couple hundred more years..... <hr /></blockquote>

A meeting was held in GWB Arena between U.S. President Pedro Gonzalez and French President Abdul Yamatte. They had gathered to discuss the recent findings that, indeed, the earth had been visited by extraterrestials during the 1950's and left the roots of new technology developed in the early to mid 21st century. Technology that burns rocks as energy, enhancing the needed greenhouse effect that has shown to be a net benefit to the world. Long drawn out court trials and inhumane death penalties have been replaced by Muslim haircuts where the infidel would immediatley be beheaded without a trial. Citizenship is now granted by anyone simply if they look toward this country while Mexico continues to closely guard it's borders while no one cares. Shortly after Mecca was moved to Holland, the Islamic majority restores women's rights to full head wear and non-employment and driving status to the cheers of everyone in the Islamic world. The George W. Bush Memorial Temple just outside Bagdad remains the target of Osima Bin Laden, reputed to be over 260 years old but in continued poor health.

The cigar shaped Clinton Memorial in China remains one of the most visited sites in Eurasia. In a related note, the book by ex-Presidential candidate Al Gore sold it's 16th copy after only 271 years in print. The ACLU has fliled suit requiring at least 100 more people to purchase the 13 page book.

Winter Holiday Non-Infidel Fest will be celebrated by all on or about December 25th.

Even with an all Islamic Party the democrats still refuse to win an election. The drought, since 1996, has not healed the hurt of generations who believe that all the elections were stolen.

The Republicans, since deciding "if you can't whip 'em join 'em" have decided just to change their candidate's names to sound more eastern.

The control over terrorism has been good with only the bombing of the ecconomic center of the U.S. Hispanola, Texas seeing the only real incident reported by the official news agengy Fox (in your face). All the info we gonna let you know.

Wolfdancer retires to raise leaches in sunny New Hampshire....


Deeman

SnakebyteXX
12-22-2005, 11:18 AM
From Time Magazine:

'Breathtaking Inanity': How Intelligent Design Flunked Its Test Case

A federal judge minces no words as he comes down against evolution's rival

Posted Tuesday, Dec. 20, 2005
Intelligent design is a religious idea and a Pennsylvania school board may not introduce it into the classroom, a federal judge ruled today. Judge John E. Jones III ruled that the Dover Area School Board improperly introduced religion into the classroom when it required science teachers to read a brief statement during the 9th grade biology class telling students that evolution was “Just a theory” and inviting them to consider alternatives. The only alternative specifically mentioned was “intelligent design,” the notion that life is so complex that it could not possibly have been the work of natural selection alone and must have been the work of an unspecified creative intelligence. “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,” Jones wrote.

Members of the school board, and defenders of intelligent design generally, contend that their idea is a legitimate scientific rival to evolution. Since the notion of intelligent design does not specify who or what created life as we know it, they say, it is not an inherently religious idea. Critics, however, say that intelligent design is inherently religious since it relies on a supernatural creative force, which cannot be tested or proven by scientific experiments. This, they said, is tantamount to introducing God into the process, an impermissible injection of religion into the classroom.

Jones agreed and pointedly rejected intelligent design as a legitimate scientific theory. “To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect,” he wrote. “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.”

Jones sharply rejected any suggestion that evolution was somehow at odds with religion. <font color="blue">“Both defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption that is utterly false,” he wrote. “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, plaintiff’s 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.”</font color>

Jones seemed particularly annoyed by the Dover school board members, who denied under oath that the approval of intelligent design was based on religious conviction, despite the testimony of several witnesses who said board members made overtly religious comments during their deliberations. “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,” Jones wrote.

Jones’ decision applies only to the Dover case, but the case had been closely watched nationwide since it was the first court test of intelligent design. The Supreme Court has repeatedly banned efforts to remove evolution from the classroom or to introduce Creationism, the idea that life on earth was created directly by God. Critics of evolution had hoped that intelligent design, which is not specific about who or what created life, would survive a court challenge.

It’s unclear whether the case will be appealed, however. Voters in Dover threw out eight of the nine pro-intelligent design school board members in the regular election last month, installing a slate of solidly anti-intelligent design candidates. Those school board members have given conflicting statements as to whether they would allow the case to continue to the appeals courts in hopes of making it a national test case to ban intelligent design from the classroom.

The Dover school board became the first in the nation to explicitly embrace intelligent design in October of 2004, when it required teachers to read the brief statement at the start of the evolution unit in the biology class. Teachers later refused and the statement was read instead by administrators. Jones said the Dover case was 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.” He derided the school board’s decision as “breathtaking inanity” and said the resulting “legal maelstrom” was an “utter waste of monetary and personal resources.” The judge’s decision clears the way for the plaintiffs in the case to demand repayment of legal expenses. It’s not clear, therefore, how much the case may wind up costing the taxpayers of Dover.

Opponents of intelligent design hailed the ruling as a smashing victory for evolution. “Everybody understood that intelligent design was a religious proposition, and we are absolutely thrilled that Judge Jones has seen through the smoke and mirrors used by intelligent design proponents,” said Witold Walczak, legal director of the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, at a press conference after the ruling. The ACLU provided substantial legal backing to the plaintiffs in the case. Walczak said the trial decisively demonstrated that intelligent design is not science in any way. “At a time when this country is lagging behind other nations in scientific literacy, we can ill afford to shackle our children’s minds with 15th century pseudo science,” he said.

Eric Rothschild, a member of the ACLU legal team and a partner in the powerful Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton, attacked the school board members who approved the intelligent design requirement. “They were selfish—they imposed their own religious viewpoint on a community that has diverse religious beliefs,” he said. “And they did that without any investigation or research about whether what they were presenting to the students was science. This was all about getting their religious views into the school curriculum.”

Both men said the turmoil and bitterness that racked Dover after the intelligent design requirement was passed shows why the separation of church and state is so important. Walczak pointed to stories from the plaintiffs of how they had been criticized, shunned, and mocked as “atheists” when they complained, despite the fact that many of the plaintiffs say they are devoutly religious. “Dover is exhibit A for what happens when the government injects itself into religious belief,” Walczak said.

Intelligent design supporters, however, refused to concede defeat.The Thomas More Law Center issued a written statement criticizing the Supreme Court itself, saying that the existing case law on which Jones based his decision “is in hopeless disarray and in need of substantial revision.” The center’s president, Richard Thompson, insisted in the statement that the Dover School Board instituted was not inherently religious. “The Founders of this country would be astonished at the thought that this simple curriculum change ‘established religion’ in violation of the Constitution that they drafted,” he wrote.

But he pointed to past statements from Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas criticizing existing Supreme Court precedent on religion as evidence that the court is not unified in its rejection of creationism and other alternatives to evolution. “Unfortunately, until the Supreme Court adopts a more coherent and historically sound jurisprudence, school districts like Dover will be at risk of costly lawsuits by the ACLU for adopting such modest curriculum changes such as the one at issue,” he wrote.

web page (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1142625-2,00.html) <font color="blue"> </font color>

wolfdancer
12-22-2005, 12:01 PM
lol !!!!!
that made my day........
I read a serious article recently....that some MD's are beginning to use leeches again