Intelligent Design Barred

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 11:32am

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aHhAnvL4XhjU&refer=us


The funny point is - the judge who not only ruled that intelligent design should be barred but that intelligent design is not science was appointed by Bush.
Yet another defeat for the twit shrub.

[Kitzarina]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 11:36am

Now if that judge could just come to Kansas...I really hate this state

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 11:54am

Okay, so I just want to run this one by you all...

When I was in elementary school, we had this program where you'd take an hour or two a week out of school and go to a nearby church to do Bible study. You know, singing songs, learning the books of the Bible, etc. This was a public school, mind you. Our parents had to give us permission to go, but the kids who weren't Christian (only one or two in each class) or whose parents didn't want them to participate had to stay back at school and do nothing, or have extra practice math problems or something stupid like that. It didn't bother me at the time because I was a third grader and got to skip real schoolwork to sing "Jesus Loves Me," but looking back it's hugely unfair, and probably very unconstitutional.

There was a big stink about it made a few years ago (my small Virginia town made the Washington Post, etc.) The school board was really resistant to changing it. Anyway, I'm not just a crazy liberal for thinking how messed up this is, am I?

Sorry for the threadjack! I didn't want to start a new thread for this. Awesome about the Intelligent Design ruling, and even more awesome that it was made by a Bush appointee.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 1:32pm

Bleah. I would have felt hugely uncomfortable in a situation like that, sweetestsiren.

But hey, the really fun part of the Dover story is that they already voted out the Board of Ed. members who created the ID policy back in November. Go PA!

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 1:35pm

Am I weird for not having a problem with them teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?

I mean, anyone who claims the earth is 6,000 years old is clearly retarded, so teaching it doesn't do anything except expose the idiocy of it.

Also, even if it gets taught as good, as long as there is another option, I guess I just don't have a problem with it.

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 1:37pm

Yes, but because this is the first case dealing with this issue to hit the federal level, the precedent it sets is far more reaching than the election replacing the school board.

Yipppeeeeee!

[DG]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 1:48pm

Touch - I actually have no trouble with the concept being addressed - although, maybe in a philosophy class instead of a science class. However, I do have some issue with it being tied to the Christian ideas of what that intelligence might be.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 1:51pm

yes, agreed...it does fit philosophy more than science.

I don't have a problem with them saying, "hey, this is the Christian idea of creation"...it doesn't offend me at all to have someone explain what people believe. If they were teaching it as God's Truth, then I'd have a problem.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 2:01pm

When I was in junior high, we learned all the creation myths as part of a class in Comparative Religions, and it was wonderful.

But to make it part of a science class was an act of intellectual terrorism that even the Vatican disapproved of! I'm glad the court struck it down.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 2:09pm

Well, you'd think the fundies wouldn't want a "godless teacher" teaching their kids about how God created the world.

Same goes for school prayer.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 2:14pm

"ID" is not science. Period. It posits nothing, it can't be tested, and it's based on nothing but doubts about the veracity of evolution. It's no more appropriate to teach that in a biology class than to teach alchemy in a chem class.

No, that's not fair. At least alchemists had actual hypotheses and performed experiments.

You want to teach about religion in school? Fine and dandy. My middle school had a pretty great combined English/History unit on the major world religions, with groups of kids randomly getting assigned to groups to make detailed presentations. Much to my dismay, I got assigned to Islam, but I ended up learning a lot. And there was no proseltyzing about it.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 2:16pm

And yeah, let's be fair and teach kids about everything from Genesis to Dreamtime as a literature unit. Should be fun. :)

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 2:18pm

Touchme, did you intend to be so unintentionally funny saying as long as they don't teach intelligent design as God's truth?

Anyway, the problem is not in the universal aspect of teaching it. It's teaching it in science for me (Yeah, DG, definitely in philosophy, but not in science) as well as knowing that ALL methods of possible creationism will not be taught. It's simply an excuse to use public school to indoctrinate Christian dogma. Don't believe for a second they'll mention the titans creating the world.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 2:21pm

Man, I really want to get some Hindus and Buddhists together to sue for inclusion of their creation stories, too. :P

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 2:23pm

Yes, that was my unintentional intention.

Let's also not forget that there should be a section explaining the philosophy of science, as well. Science, like every world view, has a set of beliefs that it assumes without conclusive proof. The trick is just to own up to what you assume, and not pretend like you received this knowledge from on high.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 2:26pm

Science, like every world view, has a set of beliefs that it assumes without conclusive proof.

Um...what? The philosophy of "nothing is ever proven, only disproven"? The philosophy of "believe nothing without experimental verification"? The philosophy of "peer review published work to make sure it's accurate"? Updated On: 12/20/05 at 02:26 PM

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 2:35pm

Yes, Plum. Those ideas are a worldview that assumes (oddly enough...and counter to some of the same statements science makes) a knowable, predictable, and explain-able future.

Those world views are assumed (and counter themselves): nothing is ever proven, only disproven (except this statement), believe nothing without experimental verification (except this statement), etc.

Mind you, I am not anti-science, I just find that so many people assume science has no set of beliefs and is completely seperate from any kind of politicization. Sadly, no world view is that way.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 2:44pm

I see it differently, touchme. Whatever science hasn't repeatedly verified remains an inexplicibale murk. There's plenty of room for chaos, unpredictability, and just plain weirdness within a scientific worldview. Just ask anyone trying to figure out a way to verify string theory. The mark of a good scientist is the ability to say "I don't know." Like when you're trying to say where an atom's electron is at any given time- you can't; the best you can do is draw an orbital for it and make percentages about where it might be.

Though hilariously, there is a measurement for entropy. That always made my poor head explode in physics class.
Updated On: 12/20/05 at 02:44 PM