A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the “intelligent design” explanation for the origin of life cannot be taught in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district.
The Dover Area School Board violated the Constitution when it ordered that its biology curriculum must include “intelligent design,” the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled.
“The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy,” Jones wrote. “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.”
Bravo!
It’s a sad truth that this whole thing has been co-opted by both sides. Intelligent Design has been so grabbed onto by the fundamentalists, that even rational religious people like me dislike them. And evolution has been co-opted by non-religious groups so hard as to be athiest in nature. Even Darwin believed in God. Why can’t one believe in Evolution, AND in that higher power that sparked the engine of life that IS evolution?
I know someone, an “engineer” at a Fortune 500 corporation, who does not “believe” in the theory of quantum mechanics because it is absent from, or antithetical to, the bible (his exact argument escapes me at the moment). In college I knew an engineering student which briefly accepted the idea that, “God’s existence is proved by the extreme unlikelihood of our plant Earth being at the exact orbital altitude required to support life.”
Our economic future (including the retirement system) depends on having the brightest and most knowledgeable workers. If we give in to the thinking of the lowest common denominators, we will be enslaved by China and India (just as the British attempted enslave those two countries).
I agree with Chris. This debate is in a pretty sad state.
To me, what’s being missed is how a judge overruled a governing body simply because he didn’t agree with him. So much for a seperation of powers.
ID was not being taught, it was only stated at the beging of the year saying not every one belives in evolution, but something called Intelligent Design. How is that teaching Intelligent Design. It is a great day for narror mindedness.
Chris: “Why can’t one believe in Evolution, AND in that higher power that sparked the engine of life that IS evolution?”
Personal beliefs and scientific theories should not be mixed in the classroom. There’s room for everything, just not in the same discussion.
Perhaps one of your best images – State and church as orthogonal and disjoint regions that only appear joined from a select perspective.
The shameful crime in the report is that fundamentalists are attempting to use the power of the state to undermine faith in the theory of evolution and to force nonbelievers to think about and seriously consider the probable existence of an intelligent Creator. Nonbelievers don’t want to go there.
what’s being missed is how a judge overruled a governing body simply because he didn’t agree with him.
“being missed”?? That is why we were given the right to petition a court to review the decisions of “governing bodies”. And why the Board can appeal the ruling if it believes the Judge’s [legal] opinion is flawed.
ID was not being taught, it was only stated at the beging of the year saying not every one belives in evolution, but something called Intelligent Design.
Of course, that is because there is nothing about design to teach. It points to several weaknesses in Evolution – which, ironically, requires a detailed knowledge of Evolution to understand – but offers only a three-word alternative: “Something designed Everything”.
Hard to build a curriculum around three words. 😉
To pcjohnson, I’ve yet to see any scientific proof and facts that evolution itself is anymore than a theory like ID is. I agree with Chris, the beginning of everything was done by an intelligent creator, and part of that creation is for the creation to adapt to it’s surroundings, i.e. micro-evolution.
“It is a great day for narror mindedness.”
Yes it was Michael because not everyone who doesn’t believe in evolution doesn’t automatically believe in intelligent design either! That is why only science should be taught in schools, it’s not about belief, it’s about logic.
At some point people will realize the best way to teach against the evolution t-h-e-o-r-y is to teach ALL of the t-h-e-o-r-y. Like PCJohnson said in an earlier comment “it is about tangible, reproducible, provable descriptions of our world support by facts.” Darwin himself admitted his idea was not supported by facts. Lucy’s pivotal knee was found miles from the rest of her bones. Even today no (as in zero) positive (good fer ya) genetic mutations have been identified. Darwin’s idea depended on millions and millions of these positive mutations. It really is okay to teach it but just don’t leave out the facts.
“To pcjohnson, I’ve yet to see any scientific proof and facts that evolution itself is anymore than a theory like ID is.”
To be fair, evolution is taught as a “theory.” There are a LOT of theories that are taught, but the point is to draw a line somewhere. Evolution may be a theory, but it is a scientific one. It is based on observation. Intelligent design is based on myth and legend. Its based no more on observation than the “flying spagetti monster” theory.
Food for staving minds: http://www.mcb.uct.ac.za/tutorial/virorig.html#Virus%20Evolution
“Virus Evolution
One major assumption has to be made, if one is ever to make any sense of the sorts of relationships emerging from molecular phylogenetic studies. This is:
THAT VIRUSES CO-EVOLVE WITH THEIR HOSTS, LIKE ANY GOOD PARASITE.
Fortunately, there appears to be quite a lot of justification for it, especially from studies of viruses such as papillomaviruses, endogenous retrovirus-like sequences in animal genomes, and herpesviruses. For example, the divergence of primates and of birds related to chickens have been traced by comparing the types and sequences of retroviral-derived sequences in their genomes. It has also been repeatedly shown that the closest relatives of human papillomavirus types infecting particular tissue types (eg: cutaneous wart types, genital mucosal types) are those viruses infecting similar tissue types in other primates, indicating that these tissue preferences were well established before the divergence of humanoid apes from the primate line.
It is quite useful here to consider the timeline of evolution of life from its beginnings in water, as well as the timeline of colonisation of dry land by organisms, seeing as our knowledge of viruses is limited very largely to ones infecting terrestrial organisms. This process went much as follows (see also here):
4000 Myr: life originated in the sea / shallow ponds
3500 Myr: bacteria emerged from the seas to colonise the land
1000 Myr: plants / fungi slowly colonised inland of coastal margins
700 Myr: insects / arthropods crawled out to feed on plants
350 Myr: vertebrates adapted to air breathing / survival on land
Viruses of nearly all the major classes of organisms – animals, plants, fungi and bacteria / archaea – probably evolved with their hosts in the seas, given that most of the evolution of life on this planet has occurred there. This means that viruses also probably emerged from the waters with their different hosts, during the successive waves of colonisation of the terrestrial environment. Thus,
viruses of terrestrial bacteria probably derive from those of the original colonisers;
most viruses of land plants are probably evolved from those in the green algae that emerged +/- 1000 Myr ago;
most viruses of terrestrial arthropods derive from the first founders;
most viruses of terrestrial vertebrates derive from those that came ashore with the first air-breathers. “
BL, stop, you are blinding me with science, SCIENCE…
Nice job.
Kevin
“Even today no (as in zero) positive (good fer ya) genetic mutations have been identified.” Ya?
Let’s see, I have an opposable thumb. That is a mutation. I have light skin. That is also a mutation Both mutations benefit me, the thumb allows me to grasp and the light skin allows me to absorb Vitamin D in northern climes.
I could add so many more mutation examples, but if you don’t get it yet, I doubt you ever will.
The theory of arithmetic says that 2+2=4. Let’s teach all the alternate theories too!
The thing that bugs me is that everything seems to be argued from scratch. You want to teach intelligent design in schools? Great! Call it teleology, and put it in a philosophy class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology
One of the most important things I learned in ninth grade ancient/medieval history (and then again in my humanities classes in college) is that you can’t go forward with new thoughts until you adequately identify how your thoughts that you had thought were so new and cool and original to yourself, have really already been thunk before. How do you stand on the shoulders of a giant you don’t acknowledge? Instead, one ends up repeating repudiated arguments in ignorance. For both sides of the ID thingy. Gerr. Arrgh.
“To me, what’s being missed is how a judge overruled a governing body simply because he didn’t agree with him. So much for a seperation of powers.”
You mean like the seperation of Church and State? Intelligent Design is based in religion and legally, religion is not supposed to be forced upon the people through government. If you want your children taught Intelligent Design (which I personally believe is a half-baked theory like most other religious doctrine), that’s fine but then you assume the burden of sending them to a religious school. Sorry, but keep YOUR religion out of MY government.
You think the theory that all the energy and matter in the Universe was squeezed into a point smaller than a grain of sand at the origin of time is intelligent?
The reason for our existence is beyond any understanding possible. If we cannot understand it, then “something” is more intelligent than us. And it stands to reason that if that something is more intelligent than us, then it is more powerful than us. We’ve been granted knowledge to persuade us in believing a higher being. Our hubris knows no limits.
Pat,
I thought you understood Darwin’s theory? Your thumb is not a mutation by itself. It’s many many many individual mutatations that were by themselves not very beneficial. Thankfully, all those years of a not-ready-for-opposition thumb didn’t kill us off and we were able to get the bone and tissue to mutate into a ready thumb. Hooray!
Your lack of pigment is a mutation. I’ll give you partial credit there. It was not a beneficial mutation as you suggest. You no longer have the ability to self-shield UV radiation. The mutation you meant to talk about was the one that got you the pigment in the first place.
See? It’s not so hard to understand the limitations of the theory. Darwin did.
Do you think someone domesticated a wild Pug dog to make it a pet? If it weren’t for humans, dogs would not exist. Humans have had the capability to breed animals and plants to live in different environments and have beneficial qualities for thousands of years. Selective breeding is an artificial version of Natural Selection. If people are curious about Evolution then reading Darwin’s research, Mendel’s research and the research into the human genome will get you close to what Evolution is about.
Evolution is not just a theory, it is a scientific theory with the weight of a lot of good science behind it.
Onc a person has denied the existance of God another explanation of the materiel world must be found. Evolution is the only alternative. The facts that seem to support evolution must be expanded by filling in the blanks with conjecture and then interpreted in such a way so as to appear to have proved something that is unprovable. ID/Creationism is on an equal footing here.
Who is stifling dissent and forcing their views on whom? Are the evolutionists afraid to have their “just so” stories exposed for what they are? It appears that the answer is yes. Evolutionists usually refuse to debate creationists because they usually lose the debate due to the fact that tmany of their “facts” aren’t facts at all.
To say that ID/Creationism has no scientific basisis incorrect. There are many bonafide scientists who use the real facts to show that the ID or Creation model is at least as well supported. There are oters in the scientifis community that will not express their disagreement with evolutionary theory for fear of ostracism and academic death. Organization such as Institute for Creation Reasearch, Answers in Genesis and others
show that the scientific “facts” require many assumptions and may be interpreted in various ways, all of them equally “scientific”. Should an intelligent person reject any interpretation without first fully evaluating it?
The state religion in the U.S. and much of the world is a pantheistic secular humanism that rejects a real God that we owe our exixtance to and that we must ultimately answer to. In this religion man is a god. We will not know which view is correct in this materisl existance, but I’ll put my faith in the God of creation. Yes. I’m a fundamentalist. but I evaluate the fasts for myself. Shouldn’t we all do that?
You know, all of this debate aside, I would like to see the textbook they want to use to teach ID for myself.
I’ve read many scientific textbooks that deal with evolution, and I can see the science behind them that supports the theory. I can see the assumptions made, I can see the experimentation done, and I can see the results.
What I haven’t seen is the textbook for ID, the assumptions made or the experimentation done there. All I’ve heard is “Intelligent design is based on myth and legend,” or “If you want your children taught Intelligent Design (which I personally believe is a half-baked theory like most other religious doctrine), that’s fine but then you assume the burden of sending them to a religious school,” or “Personal beliefs and scientific theories should not be mixed in the classroom.”
Once I’ve read the book, seen the support and read the conclusions, I can make up my own mind on whether or not I accept or reject the theaching of this theory.
It’s interesting that this current episode took place in Pennsylvania, which is close to the East Coast ‘blue’ zone, but also has one foot in the bible belt. I don’t think certain regions in the Midwest or South will so easily go along with Judge Jones’ ruling, no matter how careful and excellent it is.
Do you see law people as a bunch of no-goodniks? In cases like this, boy, do we ever need them!! (and I think that they have a lot in common with science research, too, i.e. solving difficult problems, precision of language, etc. [and I’m not a lawyer either]).
The great squirming beast of world religious fundamentalism is a powerful antagonist, mostly by way of its great number of adherents.
“People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them.” – Dave Barry
>there is nothing about design to teach.
Then there’s no harm in teaching it.
>It points to several weaknesses in Evolution – which, ironically, requires >a detailed knowledge of Evolution to understand
That doesn’t sound very religious. Seems fine teaching that, and very scientific too.
being missed”?? That is why we were given the right to petition a court to review the decisions of “governing bodies”. And why the Board can appeal the ruling if it believes the Judge’s [legal] opinion is flawed.
Too bad law was not used in the Judge’s legal opinion. Judicial activism is a bad thing, regardless of if it aids your side. Nice try, though.
I nailed this debate in two lines. Why all the paragraphs of fluff, guys?
I can only hope not to be stuck with the American adherents after I die. Heaven could be no greater Hell than listening to a constant chorus of parrots.
After having just read Judge Jones’ ruling against the teaching of ID in the biology class, I have to agree with the decision.
For one, it singles out Evolution as the only theory the school system teaches that has religously opposed views.
The news article goes on to say, “In his ruling, Jones said that while intelligent design, or ID, arguments ‘may be true, a proposition on which the court takes no position, ID is not science.’ Among other things, he said intelligent design ‘violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation.'”
Based on this logic, I think he did the right thing. And, amazingly, the new school board did the right thing too. Instead of dropping the course on ID altogether, they moved it from the biology class (where it didn’t belong) to an elective class where it can be taught on its own.
As Eidard stated in his original posting…Bravo!
G
For James Hill:
Too bad law was not used in the Judge’s legal opinion.
Fer instance?
For AB CD:
That doesn’t sound very religious. Seems fine teaching that, and very scientific too.
Teaching the weaknesses and the strengths of a theory should be the norm in a science class, but why require mentioning a magical alternative at the start of the year?
Correct me: Is the ID argument chiefly meant to prevent people from thinking that humans and primates have descended from common ancestors, and by logical extension, that: humans and primates have souls, or humans and primates do not have souls, or humans were given souls after some milestone in evolution? By stating some designer spontaneously created humans, the preceding question is handled…. and we can inherit souls from our creator.
Tangentially, if God is so concerned about how we use our genitals and the relationship of creatures, then why doesn’t God create individuals himself without reproduction?