Author Topic: Court rejects 'intelligent design'  (Read 4405 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline IZ

  • Administrator
  • SpongeBob
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,289
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • http://www.spongebobcrazy.com
Court rejects 'intelligent design'
« on: December 20, 2005, 01:36:18 pm »
HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- "Intelligent design" 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.

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

The school board policy, adopted in October 2004, was believed to have been the first of its kind in the nation.

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy," Jones wrote.

The board's attorneys had said members were seeking to improve science education by exposing students to alternatives to Charles Darwin's theory that evolution develops through natural selection. Intelligent-design proponents argue that the theory cannot fully explain the existence of complex life forms.

The plaintiffs challenging the policy argued intelligent design amounts to a secular repackaging of creationism, which the courts have already ruled cannot be taught in public schools. The judge agreed.

"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.

The Dover policy required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement said Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps." It refers students to an intelligent-design textbook, "Of Pandas and People," for more information.

Jones wrote that he wasn't saying the intelligent design concept shouldn't be studied and discussed, saying its advocates "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors."

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

The controversy divided the community and galvanized voters to oust eight incumbent school board members who supported the policy in the November 8 school board election.

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."

The board members were replaced by a slate of eight opponents who pledged to remove intelligent design from the science curriculum.

Eric Rothschild, the lead attorney for the families who challenged the policy, called the ruling "a real vindication for the parents who had the courage to stand up and say there was something wrong in their school district."

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which represented the school board, did not immediately return a telephone message seeking comment.

The dispute is the latest chapter in a long-running debate over the teaching of evolution dating back to the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, in which Tennessee biology teacher John T. Scopes was fined $100 for violating a state law that forbade teaching evolution. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed his conviction on a technicality, and the law was repealed in 1967.

Jones heard arguments in the fall during a six-week trial in which expert witnesses for each side debated intelligent design's scientific merits. Other witnesses, including current and former school board members, disagreed over whether creationism was discussed in board meetings months before the curriculum change was adopted.

The case is among at least a handful that have focused new attention on the teaching of evolution in the nation's schools.

Earlier this month, a federal appeals court in Georgia heard arguments over whether evolution disclaimer stickers placed in a school system's biology textbooks were unconstitutional. A federal judge in January ordered Cobb County school officials, in suburban Atlanta, to immediately remove the stickers, which called evolution a theory, not a fact.

In November, state education officials in Kansas adopted new classroom science standards that call the theory of evolution into question.
Text of the school's statement

Text of the statement on "intelligent design" that Dover Area High School administrators have been reading to students at the start of biology lessons on evolution:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, "Of Pandas and People," is available in the library along with other resources for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intellig...n.ap/index.html

Offline cmonkey

  • Administrator
  • SpongeBob
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,990
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • United SpongeBob
Court rejects 'intelligent design'
« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2005, 01:46:37 pm »
Yay for the US Federal Court system.  It's hard to believe there are actually people out there who think Intelligent Design is science.
Check out my website, www.spongezone.net... oh, nevermind

13 Ghz folding for Team SpongeZone

Offline Daniel

  • SpongeBob
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,442
  • Gender: Male
  • Hi!
    • View Profile
Court rejects 'intelligent design'
« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2005, 03:21:19 pm »
Too long to read. Can some one sum it up for me?

super_sayian_spongebob

  • Guest
Court rejects 'intelligent design'
« Reply #3 on: December 20, 2005, 03:25:02 pm »
Intelligent Design = God or some other divine being created us.

Boo the Surpreme Court.

Offline IZ

  • Administrator
  • SpongeBob
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,289
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • http://www.spongebobcrazy.com
Court rejects 'intelligent design'
« Reply #4 on: December 20, 2005, 04:04:10 pm »
Quote
Intelligent Design = God or some other divine being created us.

Boo the Surpreme Court.
[snapback]262318[/snapback]

It's not a science... it's just saying God created something. That's it.

super_sayian_spongebob

  • Guest
Court rejects 'intelligent design'
« Reply #5 on: December 21, 2005, 07:42:54 am »
Quote
Quote
Intelligent Design = God or some other divine being created us.

Boo the Surpreme Court.
[snapback]262318[/snapback]

It's not a science... it's just saying God created something. That's it.
[snapback]262335[/snapback]
I never said it was Science.

Offline cmonkey

  • Administrator
  • SpongeBob
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,990
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • United SpongeBob
Court rejects 'intelligent design'
« Reply #6 on: December 21, 2005, 08:34:00 am »
Quote
Quote
Quote
Intelligent Design = God or some other divine being created us.

Boo the Surpreme Court.
[snapback]262318[/snapback]

It's not a science... it's just saying God created something. That's it.
[snapback]262335[/snapback]
I never said it was Science.
[snapback]262446[/snapback]
Then surely you agree that it shouldn't be taught in a science class, which is what the court decision was about.  I have no problem with ID being taught in a church or a religion class, but it doesn't belong in a science class.
Check out my website, www.spongezone.net... oh, nevermind

13 Ghz folding for Team SpongeZone

Dragon Of Grief

  • Guest
Court rejects 'intelligent design'
« Reply #7 on: January 30, 2006, 04:53:53 pm »
I don't think Intelligent Design should be taught in Science class because it has little or nothing to do with science... perhaps maybe they could have offered it as an elective for people to choose wether or not they want to take it.

EDIT: Sorry, I didn't realize this topic was so old :sad:
« Last Edit: January 30, 2006, 04:55:11 pm by Dragon Of Grief »