Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
Quote:
Showdown over science The teaching of "intelligent design" alongside evolution in public schools gets its first legal test at a trial in Pennsylvania.
- - - - - - - - - - - - By Julian Borger
Sept. 27, 2005 | HARRISBURG, Pa. -- Religion and science clashed in a drab Pennsylvania courtroom Monday over a test case that could decide how evolution is taught in America's public schools.
The civil trial, triggered last year by a classroom battle, marks the beginning of the first major legal assault on evolution science in 18 years. The case also represents the first legal test of "intelligent design," the belief that life on earth is too complex to be explained by random genetic mutation and therefore a guiding force must be involved.
In Monday's court hearings, supporters argued that "intelligent design" does not stipulate what that guiding force might be, and is therefore not a religion. Its opponents derided it as a mere repackaging of creationism, the religious dogma that God brought life into being in its present form a few thousand years ago.
The case is a test of strength that secularist organizations hope will prove decisive in destroying the scientific credibility of intelligent design once and for all. They are therefore determined to pursue it as far as the Supreme Court if necessary.
Witold Walczak, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union arguing the case Monday, told the Guardian before the trial: "It's the first vigorous review of intelligent design. They have so far refused to enter the forum where scientists publish their theories."
The contest was joined Monday under the weak light bulbs of a federal district court in the state capital of Harrisburg. In a chamber more accustomed to hearing arguments over taxes and copyright, lawyers debated the meaning of science and the origins of life.
The defendants are the members of the school board of Dover, Pa., which last year became the first district in the country to require its teachers to question the scientific underpinning of evolution.
"The theory [of evolution] is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence," Dover teachers had to tell their students. "Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view."
The plaintiffs are 11 parents who claim that statement is religious and therefore a violation of the constitutional separation between church and state. Their legal team, backed by the ACLU, launched an assault on intelligent design, describing it as a "clever, tactical repacking of creationism," which the Supreme Court ruled in 1987 could not be taught alongside evolution.
"It is a wedge strategy to overturn the rules of science," argued Eric Rothschild, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs. "It's creationism with the words God and Bible left out. Intelligent design is not science in its infancy. It's not science at all."
The case for intelligent design was argued by three lawyers from the Thomas More Legal Center, a Christian foundation founded by Thomas Monaghan, a Roman Catholic multimillionaire and founder of the Domino's Pizza chain. In his opening statement yesterday, Pat Gillan, the lead attorney for the defense, argued that the case is "about freedom in education, not about a religious agenda."
Pointing out that the Dover statement asked schoolchildren to keep "an open mind," Gillan said: "The primary effect of the policy would be to advance science education. It is not religion. Intelligent design is really science in its purest form -- a refusal to close avenues of exploration in favor of a dominant theory."
In the United States, the case is being portrayed as a replay of the Scopes trial of 1925, in which a Tennessee biology teacher was fined for breaking a state law banning the teaching of evolution. It was known as the "Monkey Trial" because the teacher, John Scopes, was derided for believing humans were descended from apes.
Secular science has won all the big legal battles since then, but not the struggle for American minds. In an echo of the Scopes trial, some of the Dover parents involved in the case were recently mocked at a local fair by opponents who performed a monkey dance around them.
B's Two Cents: I don't have a problem with reading a disclaimer, but this disclaimer points out that there are some gaps in the scientific evidence of evolution, but fails to mention that there is NO scientific evidence for intelligent design whatsoever. You should tell kids that lots of people believe in intelligent design, but since there is no scientific evidence, it is not taught in science class. Hell, I don't even care if you spend some time in science class on Intelligent Design, so that student can voice their thoughts, but you have to be clear that ID is NOT science in any way, shape, or form.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
Mitchell wrote:
hey, B. great thread for PJ Chat.
Sorry.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Post subject: Re: Do The "Evolution" vs. I Got "ID"
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:39 pm
Got Some
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:58 pm Posts: 1148 Location: Green Bay
Pat Gillan wrote:
Intelligent design is really science in its purest form.
_________________ When the last living thing Has died on account of us, How poetical it would be If Earth could say, In a voice floating up Perhaps From the floor Of the Grand Canyon, "It is done. People did not like it here.''
No shit. That's why it's called a "theory". The "theory" of evolution is that living things change over time. Not that an amino acid floating in the ocean will become a Panda bear all by itself.
Anyone know what gaps this 'educator' is referring too?
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
broken_iris wrote:
Anyone know what gaps this 'educator' is referring too?
The Missing Link
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
broken_iris wrote:
B wrote:
broken_iris wrote:
Anyone know what gaps this 'educator' is referring too?
The Missing Link
Use the religion argument:
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
That only applies to theories with no proof at all.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
B wrote:
broken_iris wrote:
B wrote:
broken_iris wrote:
Anyone know what gaps this 'educator' is referring too?
The Missing Link
Use the religion argument:
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
That only applies to theories with no proof at all.
You're missing the point. If you want to, replace "proof" with "evidence".
Religious folks say that just because you can't prove that God exists doesn't mean he doesn't. And that is a good logical argument.
Scientists should say the same thing about evolution, except that we've got 150 years of compiled scientific evidence that all point squarely in the direction of evolution by natural selection.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
I've thought this over a bit, and if people want a compromise, what about something like this: keep the evolution sections intact in a biology class, but then also have a separate philosophy class, where the issues of intelligent design, creationism, or whatever they want to call it, seem more appropriate.
Futhermore, I sure wish there was more of an empahasis on philosophy at my school. We barely covered some thoughts in gov't class.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:59 am Posts: 18643 Location: Raleigh, NC Gender: Male
punkdavid wrote:
Scientists should say the same thing about evolution, except that we've got 150 years of compiled scientific evidence that all point squarely in the direction of evolution by natural selection.
Pfft! You got proof of it? Can you SHOW me evolution taking place? Hah. Thought not.
Scientists should say the same thing about evolution, except that we've got 150 years of compiled scientific evidence that all point squarely in the direction of evolution by natural selection.
Pfft! You got proof of it? Can you SHOW me evolution taking place? Hah. Thought not.
Yes. Viruses evolve quickly, this can be shown in a lab. Can you describe any living thing or component thereof not created by evolution?
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
Darrin wrote:
Once again, fundamentalist Christianity is the cancer of the Western world. I'll say it until I'm blue in the face.
You've been challenged to justify that statement in another thread, Mister!
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum