No. He said that ID could not be extricated from it’s religious origins. This was a 1st amendment issue. If it had nothing to do with religion, there could be no 1st amendment objection.
I haven’t heard of many science teachers who like the idea of teaching ID. I don’t know about principals, but I suspect there would be quite a few who **would **be comfortable with the idea.
I also agree with the decision on the basis that there is no factual proof like you have stated. The one thing I would like to see more of is the idea of how little we know and that reality will almost certaintly turn out to be completely different than our perception of reality today (in a strictly scientific sense). Shagnasty makes some good comments that go along with what I am saying: “Deep thought on these subjects would include learning about the vastness of the universe, the likelihood there are extra dimensions we can’t even perceive, the strangeness of the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, and the different theories about what isn’t included in our universe. Other study should include the biology of consciousness and how little we know.
It is just basically educating yourself very well on the parts of science that we don’t understand and yet play the most key roles about our existence, destination, and the origin of the universe.”
Be the first in you neighborhood to make you own Flying Spaghetti Monster hat.
If creationism/intelligent design had any intrinsic merit as science at all, it simply would not be necessary to resort to shoddy political tub-thumping to get it taught in the science classroom. It requires this huge grumpy battle because of itself, it is worthless.
Oops… I realise I haven’t quite answered the question about whether it was right or wrong to ban it… OK; it shouldn’t have been necessary to ban it; simply continuing to ignore it along with all the other irrelevant nonsense we ignore should have been sufficient.
It wasn’t sufficient, because ID is being actively promoted - banning it is not a reaction to intelligent design itself, it’s a reaction to the political pressure behind it, seeking to impose it where it does not belong. Yes, it was the right thing to do.
No, Judge Jones definitively ruled that ID is religious - his basic argument is that ID is an offshoot of Creationism, and Creationism was ruled to be a religious idea in Epperson v Arkansas and McLean v Arkansas. Indeed, he said (page 24 of the judgement):
“… the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.”
The principal and teachers were opposed to it, and fought it every step of the way. They refused to put their names to the pro-ID curriculum, and refused to read out the pro-ID “disclaimer” that the board required; this had to be done by the school administrators instead. I believe the principle (Peterman) was fired, or at least disciplined, over her anti-ID stance.
Oooh! That’s good. Is that page by anyone we’d know from the board, or is it just something you found?
Please modify the statement to:
“None of them have any place being “taught” as part of the science curriculum in school, teaching them in a philosophy or comparative religion class would be fine.”
Then to be snarky, “especially if they are compared to the creation myths of all the other old religions. “
Jim
Judge Jones (no dummy he) said in his ruling that he was not an activist judge. His implication was that he got the case because of an activist (and stupid) school board.
I must admit that his appointment was one thing Bush got right.
That would be a good thing to teach. Of course evolution in general is not one of the places where there are big mysteries - some small ones, certainly, but not big ones.
It was amusing to read in the Times this morning a quote by Dembski about how IDers were going to have to go into the lab to prove their position. I don’t think they’ll get very far, but if they had been doing that instead of trying to push an unproved and unverified position in science class, they wouldn’t have been in the fix they’re in today. I think the lawyer was also saying that they are going to start to do science as a last resort. Shows you how upside down the priorities of these clowns are.
I bow to no one in my dislike of activist judges.
And there is nothing “activist” about this ruling. It doesn’t plough new ground; it doesn’t invent new rights. It applies existing precedent correctly, and is based on a finding of fact that the proponents of ID in Dover were simply seeking to advance creationism under a new name.
Oh, that’s just something my wife found when looking for patterns online, no connection to the SDMB that I know of. She sits around all day sewing and making awful jokes, she’s a real knit wit.
I skimmed the decision yesterday and IIRC the decision went further than that. It also ruled that ID as concepted in Dover was religious not only in intent of the proponents(which is enough to fail the three-part Lemon test or the two-part test designed by O’Connor) but in and of itself. Religious intent was clear from the notes of the school board meetings, a ruling solely on those grounds would have had no need for scientific testimony. My understanding was that the judge based the ruling on more than the intent of the board members. At least one more finding of fact was involved. The finding of ID, as defined and concepted in this instance, as a religious statement which the state is specifically prohibited from making. Even if the intentions of the board had passed the test, this finding of fact would still have caused the action to fail the Lemon test as the statement being required of teachers on ID has no secular value.
Was there something I missed or did I misread the opinion?
Enjoy,
Steven
But let’s be fair, the Discovery Institute’s only reason for being is to promote creationism, of course they’re going to scream and whine about the ruling. I think you’ll need some quotes from politicians or conservative pundits attacking this as judicial activism for it to count.
[total hijack]Don’t you just love the idea that judges invent rights? Somehow I’m glad I didn’t need a public defender.[/total hijack]
Well, maybe no **Constitutional **provision would have been violated; I bet there are all kinds of local, state, and Federal laws (No Child Left Behind comes to mind) that could be interpreted to forbid the teaching of unanimously acknowledged fiction as scientific theory or fact.
I doubt it. NCLB is more about standardized testing and teacher certification, so as long as the tooth fairy isn’t part of standardized testing, then there shouldn’t be a problem. Of course, if you have a specific cite showing how this would be illegal, you would be correct. At present, though, all we have is your speculation.
So, how much do you want to bet?
History is replete with examples of judges inventing rights not formerly in existence.
As I read it, the description of “intelligent design” as found by the court was identical in all respects to the concept of scientific creation, on which a ruling had already been issued.
Someone simply took that definition of “scientific creation” and word-subbed in “intelligent design” and resubmitted it. The court was not fooled, evidently.
I’m no legal expert, but it seems the only new finding was that “intelligent design,” as submitted, contained no material difference from a previous already-ruled case.
This an old familiar road. The people start out with all rights and accept limitations on some of them in return for the common defense, general welfare, etc., etc., etc.
Rights don’t have to be invented by anyone. They are part of the scene.