What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Another Fool Judge

Lewis

Lewis

Member
HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- A Pennsylvania public school district will abandon its practice of teaching "intelligent design" before lessons on evolution after a federal judge ruled that the concept is "the progeny of creationism."

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones denounced the Dover Area School Board in a ruling Tuesday, saying its first-in-the-nation decision to introduce intelligent design into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

The ruling was a major setback to the intelligent design movement, which is also waging battles in Georgia and Kansas. Intelligent design, or ID, holds that living organisms are so complex that a higher force must have created them.

"It was an effort to include intelligent design and treat it as science, disparaging evolution along the way," said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "That will not stand."

The dispute was one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. It also divided Dover and surrounding Dover Township, a rural area of nearly 20,000 residents about 20 miles south of Harrisburg.

The policy's supporters on the board displayed "striking ignorance" about intelligent design, said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench in 2002. Several board members lied to conceal religious motives, he added.

Intelligent-design supporters were ousted in November's school board elections and replaced with a new slate opposed to the policy. The new school board president, Bernadette Reinking, said the board wants to place intelligent design in an elective social studies class instead.

"There is no intent to appeal," she said.

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

But the judge said: "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."

The decision could impact school systems across the country. In Kansas, critics immediately predicted the ruling meant that recently adopted science standards could be vulnerable to a legal challenge. The standards, adopted in November, treat evolution as a flawed theory, but do not endorse intelligent design.

Earlier this month, a federal appeals court heard arguments about whether a suburban Atlanta school district had the right to put stickers on biology textbooks describing evolution as a theory, not fact. A federal judge last January ordered the stickers removed.

The ruling angered proponents of intelligent design, including the Seattle-based think tank the Discovery Institute. The group has said it disagreed with Dover's mandate to teach the theory, but criticized West's decision anyway.

The group has said before that the hostile treatment of leading academics in the intelligent design movement demonstrate how dangerous it is for researchers to oppose the scientific establishment.

"Judge Jones got on his soapbox to offer his own views of science, religion and evolution," said John West, a senior fellow. "He makes it clear that he wants his place in history as the judge who issued a definitive decision about intelligent design. This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur."

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
_________________
 
But Bush himself believes in creation. And appointing this judge was a mistake.
Because he is a fool.
 
Lewis W said:
But Bush himself believes in creation. And appointing this judge was a mistake.
Because he is a fool.
Click to expand...
Should we put stickers on physics test books saying theory not fact? I'm glad the judge made this ruling, ID is quite simply not science, although i'd be glad to have it taught in RS.
 
When students, are taught evolution, they are taught blatant lies. Some men just don't want to know the truth.
 
Lewis W said:
When students, are taught evolution, they are taught blatant lies. Some men just don't want to know the truth.
Click to expand...
Except for the fact that evoloution isn't a lie, disprove it and you'll be incredibly famous as well as rich.
 
Creationism evolution is a blatant lie.

The probelm is

Most peopel against "evolution" are against the creationist version of it.

the version that proclaims that oen day, an ape gave brith to a human.

that is not the case of evolution, and the biggest problem, is that most creationists do not wish to learn about what evolution really is.


Btw, if this WAS a mistake that bush made, to appoint this judge, then, well, has he done anything right?

Just because he is a lutheran, republican, bush apointee, doesn't mean he cannot carry out the law.

Some people won't allow their religious opinions, to get in the way of upholding our nations laws.
 
Yea, I'm not so sure about Mr. Bush's true intentions anymore, being Skull n' Bones and All. I guess that's why Masons need to register if they hold government offices now in England :o . But this debate ain't over yet. They just axed it cause it was Christian. Sandor ---> Can you tell me how a group of petrified trees can remain standing, receive no erosion and not split despite millions of years of material being laid down on top of it, thru different era's of soil and rock? Or How dino tracks with a human footprint inside it can be made in already fossilized material? Or How something as fragile as a jellyfish can be fossilized, unless its done almost instantaneously? Or Why Climbers to the highest peaks on this planet report seeing layers of mollusks sometimes 10 feet thick? These clams and stuff all have there mouths closed, which means they died instantaneously. Because when a shelled animal dies the muscle holding the 2 portions relax and can no longer hold it closed? HUH Can you? If you think evolutionists do good science your deceived? Its real convenient for them to leave stuff like this out of there theories isn't it?
 
facts

Lewis W said:
When students, are taught evolution, they are taught blatant lies. Some men just don't want to know the truth.
Click to expand...
How can you argue with hard evidence? If you want your point of view to be taught as fact just show some evidence. It's that simple.
 
Why reznworks, when you can show how many holes the evolution THEORY has in it? Why can't scientists just do there job? I dont need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that these are major gaps in its theory do I? If you read my previous post, these things turn evolution upside. They dont explain anything, but that they leave vital evidence out. How convenient!
Why should anyone teach another a lie?
 
Re: facts

reznwerks said:
Lewis W said:
When students, are taught evolution, they are taught blatant lies. Some men just don't want to know the truth.
Click to expand...
How can you argue with hard evidence? If you want your point of view to be taught as fact just show some evidence. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

There is no evolution "evidence" that proves it. So we are teaching unproven theories in school. Real smart.... just throw the idea out there, but other "ideas" aren't acceptable to secular mentality.
 
ÃÂoppleganger: I suggest you study geology a bit, you will have your answers there. I am not a geologist, and I cannot explain plate tectonics, nor the receccsion of the icebers to you, However, if you ever visit Mendon Ponds Park near Rochester Ny, you will find a ton of glacial evidence thee :-P




and btw, I have found dead molusks, with their mouths clothed, ALL the time on the local beaches. Now, sure, they may have all had strokes or somethign suddenly, But most of them, I believe is because they washed up on shore due to all of the people in the water, the boats, etc..

(i am speaking of zebra molusks, pretty popular up here in new york in some lakes) Take a log coated in them, Bring it on shore and just leave it there.. 2 days later, some will be open, some wil stay closed..
 
Fossils are made from rapid burial, evolutionist has it all wrong. With their Geologic Tables, and the Day Age Theory, and the Gap Theory. And some Christians get it wrong to, these people are called Theistic Evolutionist. These Christians partly agree with the evolution theories.
 
Lewis W said:
Fossils are made from rapid burial, evolutionist has it all wrong. With their Geologic Tables, and the Day Age Theory, and the Gap Theory. And some Christians get it wrong to, these people are called Theistic Evolutionist. These Christians partly agree with the evolution theories.
Click to expand...

care to enter the "christianity vs science" forum, and prove why anything you just listed is wrong?
 
Well, your article, although. interesting.. uses science to, supposedly, make geological evidence, untrue.

this article
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noa ... html#flood

Basically proves that the flood, is impossible (you can skip the whole part about the impossibilities with the ark anyways) Now, this leaves me with 3 choices. 1) believe the creationist version, with little scientific research to back it up, and then, the entire link I provided that makes it impossible for their to be such a flood
2) believe the article I provided, ignorning the details brought up abotu jellyfish, and oysters
3) say they are both wrong, and make up my own.

I am not a geologist, I am not a paleontologist, I myself, cannot accurately answer this too well, However, I note that the article you provide, seems to give very little scientific references (the references it does give, lead to other creationist pages, with more refferences that continue, I followed one abotu 4 deep, before I gave up)

I would suggest we move this to the "christianity vs science" part. THere are many individuals there that seem to be highly educated in such matters, And I myself, have no way of really arguing most of these things, than to produce link after link after link of scientific, evidence.
 
ID is not science. Just Christianity perpetrated and hidden under the guise of science. It belongs in a philosophy and/or a religion course.

ID does not follow the scientific method and the theory ultimately leads us nowhere as far as science goes and this can be proven easily:

The universe is so complex that an intelligent being had to design it right? Well, who/what designed this intelligent being? And who/what designed the intelligent being that created that intelligent being? And so forth and so forth...

Anyway, I'm sure you've all heard this before. Just a rant...Not pushing atheism or anything. Just showing why ID is no science and by definition cannot be taugt alongside evolution. :)
 
I think that it only appears to be the case that ID does not belong in the domain of science. The following is a repost of something I wrote in a thread a while back. For those that think ID is not within the domain of "science", what is your specific counterargument to the following:

I agree that science deals with observable phenomena, However, I don't think this settles the issue what about "which classroom" should address some variants of ID.

Science looks at observable phenomena, such as chemical reactions, but it does more than this. It posits a model for the underlying hidden reality - namely that the word is made of atoms, molecules, etc. Now some may argue (and I am in this camp actually) that when scientists talk about the existence of atoms, they are not really making a commitment to the existence of such things. An atom is a purely conceptual construct, a model that works at describing how nature behaves, not what it is "made out of".

In any event, science is very much in the business of deciding which models best account for and predict future observations. Such a model might indeed include an intelligent agent - and this is why I think that, strictly speaking, ID type arguments, at least the plausible ones, do belong in the science classroom. Atoms not obervable, quarks are not observable, etc. But they are part of the scientific model.

It is possible that a case can be made that something was designed. If the best way to "model" this is to insert an intelligent agent into our models (along with atoms, quarks, etc.) then this is part of the job of science. You may object that an intelligent agent can never be the "best model". But I think that if you do this, you are showing a kind of bias, you are not being true to science - some observable phenomena in the world might indeed be best explained by an "intelligent agent" model. If so, such models should be part of science.

We have become unconsciously committed to the notion that scientific models should have a certain character (e.g. be devoid of any notion of "mind" or "directedness"). This is understandable, because the strictly "mindless" world of quarks and gravity fields works so darn well.

The scientific model of the world that we should build should be the one that best predicts what will happen and best explains that which we know - there is no a priori reason why such a model could not include an intelligent agent. Granted, we have not needed one to this point. But the final chapter has not yet been written.
 
Science would be so much "smarter" if it understood the constraints placed on it within the realm of creation. When science refuses to accept that possibility it is led astray by other philosophies and hypothesis that can never be.

Many scientists see the ridiculous hope of evolution being true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top