Judge bars school from mentioning 'intelligent design'

[sugapablo]

From the Pittsburgh Post_Gazette (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05354/625365.stm):

"'Intelligent design' cannot be mentioned in biology classes as an alternative to evolutionary theory, a federal judge ruled today. The Dover Area School Board intended to interject a religious concept into the public school classroom, Judge John E. Jones III said in his opinion. Further, he wrote, intelligent design is not a science. 'ID's religious nature is evidence because it involves a supernatural designer,' Mr. Jones wrote."

Basically, the judge told the Religious Right in their shameful attempt to gain influence over impressionable young minds to SUCK ON IT!!!

Excerpt from ruling:

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has not been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources." -- Judge John E. Jones III

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Squatch]

2. Ummm....

"...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

[bammertheblue]

They can teach God

in religion or philosophy class where it belongs, not biology class. Parents who think differently can tell their kids their opinions at home. Schools ought to be teaching science in science class, period.

[timtom]

163. Kinda like Copernicus in reverse, huh?

...Nicholas Copernicus in 1543 when he proposed that the earth revolved around the sun, a heresy according to the Church.

(Italics mine for emphasis.)

[phylny]

71. Welcome to DU :) n/t

[mzteris]

77. don't you mean

C'ya!

:rofl:

[phylny]

139. well...not quite yet ;) n/t

[Lochloosa]

73. I have a question for you.

Do you expect the schools to teach your kids your morals?
No? Then how can you expect them to teach your kids about your god?

That is what church is for. So keep your church out of the state and I will not teach your kids my morals. Ok?

[POAS]

75. So you would do away with the constitution so that

Muslims can teach about Allah in science class or Hindus can teach about the Shiva dreaming the world into existance?

[Exiled in America]

80. You can't teach religion and call it science - that's all.

You can't call ID science, because it isn't. If you want to have a comparative religions course in school, and mention ID in the context of the beliefs of certain sects of Christianity, go ahead.

[Charles19]

110. ID is no different than Darwinism

both are theories. However the design is still here, Darwin isn't. Too bad so many here can't distinguish between God and organized religion. They are different things, organized religion can be wrong, very wrong, however God isn't wrong.

Shame on this judge.

[proud2BlibKansan]

112. Shame on you

for not understanding the difference between Science and Religion.

Hint: one of them belongs in a public school, the other belongs in a church.

[Wheaty]

115. Not even close to being the same!!!!!

ID is NOT studied using the scientific method. Therefore not a scientific theory and does not belong in a science class. If you've ever paid even the tiniest bit of attention in a high school science class you would understand that scientific definition of a theory is not just some guessing and making shit up. I get so sick of the "it's just a theory" bullshit. It's an argument right out of the mouth of Rush and ORielly and used to fire up the masses.

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

* 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
* 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
* 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
* 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
* 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

Edit: to bold steps 4 & 5

[baby_mouse]

117. I'm afraid not. Sorry.

both are theories.

The word "theory" in the Western Scientific Tradition has a specific meaning.

From Wikipaedia:

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it does in other contexts. Neither is a scientific theory a fact. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven. All scientific understanding takes the form of hypotheses, theories, or laws."

Also:

"In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified."

My emphasis.

When you speak to the scientifically minded people they will expect your explanations of how reality works to adhere to these concepts of logical self-consistency, i.e. if ID was to be a theory it would have to have some sort of logical structure which can be analyzed. At the moment, as far as I can see, it's merely the suggestion that there's a big brain somewhere. Won't cut the mustard as a theory with any real scientist. Also, in order for ID to be a theory, there has to be some way to test it, which I can't really see how you would do. And you'd have to be able to make *predictions* about what things in the real world will do as a result of your theory, you'd have to establish consequences dependent on the existence of an external intelligence which can't reasonably be explained by any other cause.

Darwinism is an excellent, very logically consistent theory which essentially uses the same structure as ordinary cross-breeding on a farm as it's model, replacing the farmer's choice of useful strains of stock with the competitive nature of survival. Intelligent design doesn't really have *any* structure, so there's no way of telling whether it's logically consistent or not.

ID isn't really a *theory*. It's an *idea*.

However the design is still here, Darwin isn't.

Do you suppose that things stop being true after people who have said them have died?

And, I have a question for you, when you look around the parts of the world that have not been adjusted by human beings, where do you see anything that looks as if it was designed?

Too bad so many here can't distinguish between God and organized religion.

That's an interesting assumption. I think, however, that what you're observing on this discussion board may be a reaction to that patently obvious flaw in certain other parties.

They are different things, organized religion can be wrong, very wrong, however God isn't wrong.

With religion, yes, I agree.

With the God thing, that's another interesting assumption. Wouldn't it be *scary* to live in a world designed by an all-powerful God that COULD be wrong!!! I can see why you favor His infallibility.

Shame on this judge.

Well, not really. He's done the right thing.

Science is there to look at what's around us. Things "outside" the world are not really anything to do with science.

The minute any *information* about this alleged intelligence actually appears on the radar, then it WILL become the business of science to study it and find out what it is. As there isn't any, it's nothing to do with science, and speculation about it should be kept in classes designed for such speculation.

[The Icon Painter]

128. Shame on you

For not understanding that 'theory' in the vernacular and 'theory' in science are not identical in meaning. The difference has been pointed out often enough one can only assume you to be deliberately ignorant.

[Bridget Burke]

129. ID is not science. Darwin was a pioneer in evolutionary theory.

He wasn't the only one to develop the theory--which has continued to grow. That's how science works. "Darwinism" does not exist outside Creationist propaganda.

Quite a few organized religions can handle evolution & the rest of modern science. And many religious people can conceive of a God great enough to encompass the wondrous Universe that science reveals.

Of course, some prefer a Disreputable, Discount Deity--Creator of a tacky, small Universe. Since Earth is a blue planet, perhaps they consider it a Blue Light Special!

[Realityhack]

131. That is factualy incorrect on SEVERAL levels.

1. We are talking about Evolution not Darwanism. This may seem minor to many but it is a tell-tale of a prticular straw man argument against evolution. Futher if you do not know the terminology I find it unlikely that you know much of anything about the subject.

2. ID and *Evolution* are NOT both theories scientificaly speaking.
A scientific theory is significantly diffrent than the general meaning of the term theory and a hypothisis requires specific things to be a theory.
ID makes no predictions and is not disproveable. Nor does it have any body of evidence for it. It is NOT a theory.

3. You are acting as if every 'theory' that pops into someones head should be taught in an ungergraduate classroom with equal weight placed on it. Some theories have more evidence supporting them than others. ID has zero evidence. Some types of evolution have been demonstrated experimentaly. others have made quite advanced predictions. Ring speciese even show in the real world how speicisizton (sorry no chance of me spelling that one) works (well at least one way).

4. Id IS religious. It was invented specificaly in order to interject religious concepts into the classroom to indoronate studets. This is a well established fact if you look back on where the term and basic tenents came from originaly.

[Exiled in America]

133. No they are very different: one is based on empirical data. The other..

..is an unprovable hypothesis for which no empirical data is, or will ever be possible. Thus, by DEFINITION, it is not a scientific claim. That doesn't mean it is a stupid belief. It is fine as a position of faith. If you believe in your heart that ID is the answer to the universe that's fantastic. I believe there is a god too. But that explaination is not, nor will it ever be, science. Therefore, putting it in the science classroom and calling it science does a severe disservice to all our children, religious or not.

[Charles19]

143. Empirical data?

Your empirical data for this is the issue. Since you believe in God we are close here. Darwin's empirical data just describes how species interact with each other and their environment over time. The question becomes is it God's design to have these at chance? In a random dice roll is it random but God always knows the numbers because He can calculate it based on the physics of the throw (since He created the Universe, and humans who observed interactions in His Universe and described some of them with what humans call Physics)?, is it His will that is carried out when one species survives or not?

If I write a software program that has two simulated animals in an environment is it my will that says which animal survives or is it the software (which I created) that is doing the choosing?

For me, if looked at from a pure scientific basis nothing Darwin says gives answers to any of these questions. How God designed the Universe and species living in it to interact and survive in their environment is really not that important to me. I was in the camp long ago of those who believed Darwin was the only scientific theory you could look at to describe the evolution of species and any one who plugged God into it was a moron. (I was however wrong because I wasn't asking the right questions about such things yet). I do believe there is more to it though. The "more" to it is a number of very complex questions of which one cannot answer.

So it boils down to: Darwins observations being a proof for species and the environment having an abscence of God or if one says Darwins observations describe a number of processes in God's Universe and how God designed it to work. I am with the latter saying it is an observation of God's desing of the Universe. I am not disputing Darwin's observations I will however always dispute them being a proof of the absence of God and a proof of God's inability to carry out His will.

Of course an atheist to this will say give me the empirical proof that God is carrying out His will. Having this discussion with an atheist won't do them any good or me so I will not spend any time on that.

[Exiled in America]

144. Find the definition of empirical.

Evertying you say is interesting....

...and not science.

So trying to pass it off as science when it is not would be what? A lie. There is a concrete definition for what is and is not science. It's not ambiguous. If something cannot be falsified, it isn't a scientific claim. The claim that God created the universe cannot be empirically falsified or corroborated. Thus it, BY DEFINITION is not science. It might be "true" by it is a philosophical and spiritual truth, not a scientific claim.

The issue here isn't that anyone who believes God is part of the creation process is a moron. I believe God was. But it, by definition is not nor shall it ever be a scientific claim. It is not empirically verifiable. At all. Period. It is a statement of faith.

You're soap-boxing about standing up against Darwin's observations as proof of the absence of a God are pointless because that's not what they are about. When they are used for that purpose, then they are being misused. But the theories themselves are not, nor have they ever been attempting to scientifically disprove the existence of God. People may use them in that way, but that has nothing to do with the theories themselves.

I keep reading your response and I have yet to find anywhere in it where you actually dispute my point which is that the difference between scientific theories of evolution and religious beliefs of an intelligent design is that the former can be verified through empirical data while the latter cannot. You are aware of what the work empirical means right? It means data derrived from what we can see, hear, taste, touch or smell with our senses - objectively verifiable phenomina. I believe in the existence of an intelligent creator. Believe. I cannot prove it empirically. Hence my belief is not a scientific claim. That doesn't make it stupid or wrong, it just makes it not science. Which means I wouldn't go into a science class and try to teach it as science. That would just be looney.

The theory of evolution may one day be heavily modified or even have parts of it that are abandoned (it can't be abandoned entirely - evolution happens, we've seen it, proved it, its a fact of life. But some of the pieces are still mysterious) because new EMPIRICAL DATA is discovered that disproves certain things or proves other things. That's how science works.

[geebensis]

149. Very, very well put (nm)

[baby_mouse]

168. "I am with the latter saying it is an observation of God's design of the

...Universe."

Why?

[CAcyclist]

173. You can't provide evidence for one idea

merely by poking at what you perceive to be holes in another. You don't even have a good grasp of the current level of evolutionary theory.

The whole point of evolution is survival of the species, not survival of the individual. It has absolutely nothing to do with God. Darwin never said evolution is proof there is no God.

I don't believe in God but it's not because of evolution - my disbelief in God is actually because of sociology. After I started learning in high school about all the different religions populations had that arose within groups and not because of outside influence, I realized that religion was an answer to an inherent need within people to have a father/authority figure and as an attempt to create order out of what they perceived as chaos. That's when I stopped believing in the actual existence of a god.

[ulysses]

138. erm...

yeah, it is.

[Mike_The_Computer]

148. "Design is still here, Darwin isn't"

With logic like yours, I can see why you lack respect for science.

[Zhade]

156. As well as a basic understanding of science.

NT!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

152. shame on the judge? Yeah, shame on rational thought and analysis

we can't have that in the US, not these days.
Baad judge, baaaad judge. Activist, no doubt

[mondo joe]

154. No different? Other than Darwin being science and ID being magic.

Okay?

[rman]

157. Fundi rhetoric has it both are "ideas" and therefore equally valid

But a scientific theory is quite a bit more then just an idea; a scientific theory is an idea that has been tested against reality.

God may not be wrong, but how does anyone know what god wants?
Some people claim god speaks directly to them - to them i point and say "false prophets".

[Exiled in America]

169. They ARE both equally "valid"

The issue is that one is valid as science, the other is not.

[rman]

170. Fair enough,

though i'd like to point out that on being science and the other not, does make a difference. In that respect the two are not equal - i'm not implying that one is better then the other, though i'd say that one is more true than the other. Though that doesn't necessarily matter to the other.

ID/Creationism is as valid in science, as evolution is in Christianity. As far as i'm concerned the two do not need to cross paths.

[lakercub]

159. Wrong on so many levels

First...both are theories!?!?! In layman's terms yes. However, in scientific terms ID hasn't even reached hypothesis. Evolution is definitely a theory. And, in case you're interested, theory is as good as it gets. Science isn't about proof, it's about evidence and observations supporting hypotheses. When a hypothesis is supported by mounds of evidence (as evolution is) it "graduates" to theory.

ID has made no predictions, it has put forward no cases where it could be falsified (it can't be), it has proposed no research aside from awful probability calculations (Dembski should be ashamed of himself), and it has produced nothing for peer review. This is the definition of "Not Science." In fact, the more I read my own list, the more embarrassing it gets for the IDers.

ID has never been about science, however. Look up the Discovery Institute and their "Wedge Document." It's all about casting doubt on legitimate science for the sake of religion. Disgusting. There is a parallel here which should be considered. Today, we look at extreme Muslim countries as woefully backward in terms of ....just about everything. But look back at history. The Muslim culture was doing quite well in science and math in the 12th, 13th, and (I think) 14th centuries. However, the fundamentalists put a stop to it because they saw that too much science leads to too little God (this is not an attack of Islam, just fundamentalism). Our fundies are doing the same thing now. They are desperately trying to turn back the clock to some earlier period when everyone went to the Christian God for everything they needed (no time like this actually exists, but they have a Utopia in their minds). Halting progress for the sake of religion leads to everything bad and nothing good. Libs should be jumping all over this right now. It's the religious right that can be portrayed as anti-science (they ARE anti-science) and we should be going for the jugular. Not just to win elections either, but to keep this country moving forward scientifically. Stopping rational thought leads to more than scientific problems...it kills enlightened society.

I understand you are a Christian. So am I, although I am not a Biblical literalist. I find that reading Genesis literally is downright moronic. The 6 day Earth idea is so shot full of holes by the evidence that one would have to wear blinders to believe it. My Christianity is not threatened by evolution. Evolution may be God's tool for the diversification of species. I don't know, and I certainly wouldn't present the idea as science...it isn't. ID may be true, but it means nothing. Science must stay within the bounds of methodological naturalism or we will find "God did it" accepted as science. Easy to study and pass a test on, but useless for science.

[lakercub]

161. One other point

You can't really come down on the judge when the defense is so busy perjuring themselves. Look at some of the transcripts...it's embarrassing.

[Realityhack]

165. Link?

I saw the link to the ruleing and downloaded it.... do you have one for the transcripts? I think it would be an entertaining holiday read.

Its like I got an early present!

[lakercub]

174. William Buckingham is the man

though I think Bonsell lied to:
http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day18PMOct31.pdf (page 126, the judge gets after Bonsell)

Here are some transcripts of Buckingham's testimony:
http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day16AM.pdf
http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day16PM.pdf

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9841876/ MSNBC link to Buckingham's flip-flopping

and some more analysis:
http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/10/buckingham_lies_under_oath_in.php


Plus, the judge references the shameless lying as well (starts on p 114):
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
From page 115 of the opinion:

As we will discuss in more detail below, the inescapable truth is that both Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions about their knowledge of the source of the donation for Pandas, which likely contributed to Plaintiffs’ election not to seek a temporary restraining order at that time based upon a conflicting and incomplete factual record. This mendacity was a clear and deliberate attempt to hide the source of the donations by the Board President and the Chair of the Curriculum Committee to further ensure that Dover students received a creationist alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution. We are accordingly presented with further compelling evidence that Bonsell and Buckingham sought to conceal the blatantly religious purpose behind the ID Policy.

[Lochloosa]

167. Theory: a definition

the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.


Notice the reference to "repeatedly tested or is widely accepted". Show me where ID has been, or for that matter, can be tested. If you can't do that, show me where it is widely accepted in the SCIENCE community. Not in your church.

Keep your church out of my state and I'll gladly fight side by side with you to keep the state out of your church.

[CAcyclist]

171. ID is not a theory

ID is a hypothesis. Or in other words, a thought or an opinion.

To rise to the level of a theory, the hypothesis must be tested and evidence must be found to support the hypothesis. Evolution is a theory; ID is a fantasy.

[CAcyclist]

172. God isn't real, either

Yes, I am proud to be an atheist. You are free to believe whatever you want - but don't foist it on the rest of us.

[greiner3]

82. Damn;

And MY religion holds with the sacrifice of virginal young women as it's basic creed! :sarcasm:

[silverstateD]

85. the whole women or just the vigin part?

[Itchinjim]

88. LOL!

[LiberalFighter]

113. How do I become a member?

[Megahurtz]

130. Eeeeewwww! Pervs!

:freak::freak::freak:

:sarcasm:

[no_hypocrisy]

84. Ah yes, this is another arbitrary example of the Constitution unlawfully

interfering with local rule.

This decision is as wrong as the Supremes ruling against Jim Crow laws or southern Reconstruction as well by your rationale.

Interestingly enough, you would be correct were it not for the Fourteenth Amendment that applies the Constitution to the states. Before the 14th Amendment, the Constitution only applied if it were solely the Federal Government that was oppressing the citizens (meaning that state, county, and local governments could take more liberties than the federal government).

[Bassic]

92. Then let it be taught in religion or philosophy classes.

Because it has no place in science lessons.

[Bridget Burke]

94. Teach your children about God at home.

Or send them to Sunday School. However, quite a few denominations have no problem with evolution.

Forgive me if I've missed some extremely subtle satire.

Edited to add: Your other posts indicate you're a kid, between jobs, at home while his angry father walks uphill in the snow to his job in NYC.

Get your stories straight!

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BiggJawn]

98. I pay Taxes, too.

Keep your damn fairy tales out of the classrooms MY money goes to support.
If you want "god" taught in school, there's PLENTY of Christian Wahabi schools for you to support privately and send your kids to.

Oh, BTW, Welcome.
Enjoy your (short) stay here.

[oldcoot]

100. Not all parents are Christian and not all Christians buy ID

There are many Christians who believe that biologists, not clerics and other ID-advocates, should establish the curriculum for biology classes. They believe that their children deserve the best possible education and they want to prepare their children for the future. They do not want their kids to be taught quack theories in the classroom because they know that if their children go to college, their children's professors will be expect to them have a basic understanding of biology.

[Ian David]

102. Welcome to DU and enjoy your stay. n/t

[LiberalFighter]

107. That is what a church and THEIR schools are for

Don't be using our taxes to teach religion in public schools.

If the parents don't want evolution taught and/or want ID taught to their child(ren) then they should enroll their child(ren) in a private/parochial school.

[Beausoir]

108. That's what church is for.

School is for learning.

[hyphenate]

109. ID is NOT science

That's the point--God is a religious concept. If they want to teach ID, they can teach it in a religious course. Evolution is a SCIENCE concept. It is to be taught in SCIENCE class.

Public schools and education are federally funded, and thus fall under the government of the U.S.A. Therefore, they are to remain secular. If it's a parochial school, it's one thing, but even parochial schools have to maintain certain standards.

This devious case was put forth by some fundie groups as a test, and the judge ruled correctly, keeping the creationists and ID people from infiltrating the public school manifest.

[proud2BlibKansan]

111. I take it they didn't teach you about the constitution

in whatever shool you attended??

Welcome to DU.

Enjoy your brief stay :hi:

[Ex Lion Tamer]

118. If you really not a troll (which I doubt)

download the entire opinion here: http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/23137lgl20051220.html.

LOOK OUT, IT'S ON THE ACLU WEB SITE (another test for your trollness).

I happen to be a very devout Christian AND a very ardent proponent for the separation of Church and State. Read the opinion and you'll see why.

If you do so with an open mind, you'll change your mind. Please let us know.

Somehow, I doubt that will happen.

[me b zola]

119. It's called the Constitution, you should read it sometime

Also, in case you are confused and believe that the US was founded as a christian nation, here is a wonderful link that discusses the seperation of church & State as well as our secular heritage.

http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

[YankeyMCC]

120. Just for fun

I'll respond.

First, he said it can't be taught as part of a science class. If there are classes in theology I'm sure it would be fine.

Second, the "friggin" judge as you so eloquently put it is actually reflecting the democratic will of the people of Dover who recently booted the wacko's pushing this policy putting in their place people who do not accept ID as a valid scientific theory.

Third, it's the rule of judges to interpret laws and the constitution. Why the frig have a judiciary if you're not willing to abide by their rulings? It's called the friggin rule of law.

[derby378]

126. It's not a matter of whether or not you believe in God...

It's a matter of whether or not schools can throw science out the window and replace it with dogma, be it ID or Lawsonomy or Marxism.

[Realityhack]

132. Because of this little thing called the constitution.

Your idea of 'teaching god' in a public school is blatantly unconstitutional. And you would sudenly become quite happy about it if you lived in a comunity where the predominant religion was diffrent from yours.

It is perfectly fine to teach classes that discuss various religions. Promoting the existance of god is NOT ok. Furthermore teaching religion as science is just plain stupid.

BTW are you a freeper troll?

[sexybomber]

141. Yes, you are a radical.

Intelligent Design is not science and should not be taught in a science class. Maybe a Contemporary Fiction class, perhaps.

[Harper_is_Bush]

146. You're may be a "radical" BUT you believe in God?

What does that mean?

In what way are you a radical? And why is believing in God somehow preclusive from being a "radical", as you imply?

I don't think I'm allowed to say what I think you are, but it's pretty transparent.

Oh, and welcome to DU.

[baltlib]

3. judge in pa shoots down...

intelligent design will be back in a min with a link

BTW my first time to start a topic

[Viva_La_Revolution]

4. Congratulations

and welcome to DU! :)

[LynneSin]

5. Great job and welcome to DU

:hi:

You from Baltimore? Hope we can get rid of Elrhich. Delaware here!

[karlrschneider]

6. MSNBC reporting now, haven't found a link yet

...

[maddezmom]

7. Breaking:A federal judge has ruled "intelligent design" cannot

HARRISBURG, Pa. - A federal judge has ruled "intelligent design" cannot be taught in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district.
http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/news/breaking_news/13449517.htm

[davidinalameda]

8. wonderful news to begin the morning

good for the judge--wonder how long before impeachment proceedings start against him

[OldLeftieLawyer]

12. You amateur....

Impeachment?

Hell, no.

A good smiting awaits him.

I LOVE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is HUGH!!111!!!!!

I'm SERIES!11!!!!!!!!!1

[Greeby]

9. Expect a fatwa from Pat "The Assassinator" Robertson any minute now

:eyes:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

11. Bend over, Dover..........

and kiss your heathen asses goodbye.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[kay1864]

18. Don't blame Dover...

The residents didn't want it. It was stealth candidates on the school board (who of course got booted in November). The residents also are pissed at the lawsuit, since it took money out of the school district budget, forcing cuts in library funding etc.

Blame the pinheads on the school board (thankfully now unemployed).

[OldLeftieLawyer]

19. Oh, I know

I was joking about Pat Robertson's fatwah against those same good citizens.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

This is my best Christmas gift so far.

[kay1864]

21. Oops, my bad...

Shoulda guessed from the "heathen" comment. LOL!

Agree 100%! Best Xmas gift possible! Thanks Judge Jones!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

24. It gets better

Someone here just posted that Jones is a * appointee.

Oh, please, please, please let that be true ............. :toast::party:

[kay1864]

27. Yes, it's true!

Just checked it. Go here, and scroll to the bottom

http://www.senate.gov/comm/judiciary/general/hearing.cfm?id=250

Judicial Nominations May 2, 2002

Read 'em and weep Chimpy!!

[kay1864]

30. OMG there's more...

Guess who one of the four senators voting him in was...

The Honorable Rick Santorum
United States Senator (R-PA)

:party: :bounce:

[maddezmom]

32. LOL

this made my day :D

[kay1864]

34. ps

Should have noted that Rickie wrote a lengthy article of support for the "ID statement" in the (blatantly biased) official school district newsletter.

We must all write him a thank-you note for voting for Judge Jones in 2002!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

37. OK, at this point,

I'm pretty sure I love you for all of this.

And you know what that means, don't you?

That's RIGHT!

You get The Pussycat!!!!

[jefferson_dem]

52. Some excerpts from ruling -->

Dec. 20, 2005 (AP Online delivered by Newstex) -- Excerpts from U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III's ruling that struck down a school board's decision to require biology students in Dover, Pa., to hear about the concept of "intelligent design":

"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, in violation of the Establishment Clause."

___

"Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."

___

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has not been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

___

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. 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."

http://news.pajamasmedia.com/2005/12/20/6730876_Excerpts_From_In.shtml

[kay1864]

59. Bears repeating...

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board"

Hmm...now WHO could he possibly be referring to? :eyes: :shrug:




(hey, anybody checked FR? They must be having a Royal Conniption Fit about now...)

[Freedom_from_Chains]

10. Judges rules in Pennsylvania that children will not be taught ID

As per MSNBC

[baltlib]

14. linky here

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate;_ylt=AuAQJDG5KiLHRNtvuxveg_Cs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

quote : HARRISBURG, Pa. - A federal judge has ruled "intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district.

[gulfcoastliberal]

13. A check on the backwards slide of anti-intellectualism

that's turning this nation into idiots.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

28. And by the evening news cycle

The fundies will be claiming this to be proof that the end of times is upon us.

[mzteris]

79. now that's just

freaky!

[MountainLaurel]

15. Hooray for science!

Now, as per Sunday's Doonesbury, I think all the proponents of this ID crap should be forever prohibited from reaping the rewards of evolutions, such as being able to use anibiotics. Just a little cleansing of the gene pool, there.

[SW FL Dem]

16. The "Activist" Judge issuing ruling was appt'd by Bush

Delicious irony

[Ediacara]

31. I read in a NYT article last weekend

that he'd been approached by Ridge and other PA Republicans to run for governor, but has declined. It's good to see a little sanity on the other side, and I'm actually glad this judge is a Republican, as it makes him relatively unimpeachable.

[maddezmom]

17. here's a link from AP: Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design'

HARRISBURG, Pa. - A federal judge has ruled "intelligent design" cannot be mentioned 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 Tuesday.

The school board policy, adopted in October 2004, was believed to have been the first of its kind in the nation.

"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."



more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate_2

[Kingshakabobo]

23. Haha.. He called them liars. I like to call them liars for Jesus. n/t

[POAS]

76. It is perfectly OK to lie to

SATAN

[SW FL Dem]

26. Love that Quote!

"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."


He's calling the former Board members on their hypocrisy. The ruling also according to CNN says that ID is NOT science, it is repackaged creationism.

[moggie]

65. That's a pretty strongly-worded ruling!

This guy doesn't pull any punches. It's a great present for the solstice. Happy holidays!

:woohoo:

[baltlib]

20. just read it

to be 100 % honest i dont have a problem with public schools having a religion class, but it should teach all religions. maybe call it world religion. in my mind religion has a big part in history, like the conquests, feudal japan, england and france with the kings and queens etc. most of how the governments of the world where greatly influenced by religions and to one of the biggest is the middle east.

[Yavin4]

22. This Is About Indoctrinating Children Into Christianity

This has nothing to do with teaching about religion which is indeed a worthy subject.

[kay1864]

25. Me neither...

I think most of us here don't have a problem with a religion class. But we certainly have a problem with the Genesis myth (disguised as ID) being taught in a biology class!

Lest we forget, all the science teachers in that high school (even the non-biology teachers) wrote a strongly worded letter to the superintendent protesting the "ID statement" being read to 9th-grade biology students (said letter had in all caps "INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE").

So the assistant superintendent (an apparent fundie) had to read the statement (since the teachers refused to), and did so this past February.

Unfortunately, said asst. super was NOT up for re-election this past Election Day. We can only hope he resigns in shame for supporting this travesty.

[hyphenate]

114. I totally agree with you

Religion is religion, and history is filled with wars, conquests and rationale based on a belief in some deity. We forget how much religion has been integrated into history, from the ancient Sumerians, to the Egyptians, to Greece, Italy and beyond. If it weren't for religious "causes" there might yet have been peace earlier in our evolution. However, and thankfully, our founding fathers made sure the mistakes of having a state religion were not established here in the USA, instead, making the government separate from such beliefs.

We never had to go through what Europe did, or what mistakes were made as a result of keeping government and religion hand in hand. No excommunications of the leader of the country (Henry VIII), no Holy Roman Empire, no Spanish Inquisition, no Rasputin, no Holy Crusades. That kind of situation was pre-empted, and no one should complain!

However, having said that, it's easy to see how the sheeple are willing to forgo common sense and reason in exchange for some control over the state's secularization--those who are so willing are filled with a strong will and hatred toward people who are different than they are. Sad as the case may be, many of these people are filled with an allconsuming intolerance that eats them up from the inside, and nothing we do can stop that from happening.

[CarlWoodward]

29. Great news!

This is great news for Science, for Reason and for Rationality. Hopefully it will send a message to those who want to drag our nation back into the days of superstition and irrationality.

[Squatch]

33. You all should read the opinion...

it's clear that the judge didn't think highly of the Defendants' presentation. Besides, he's kind of a witty judge, which makes this piece of legalese a joy to read.

[SW FL Dem]

35. Link please n/t

[Squatch]

38. Here you go (it's a pdf)

Link

[kay1864]

45. Thanks Squatch!

Reading it now...

Who's Tammy Kitzmiller? A parent? We must send her (and the other plaintiffs) roses, or at least e-congrats!

And of course dead roses to Rickie! "Here's to your last remaining year in office...don't let the door hit you on the way out..."

[Squatch]

49. Check out page 4

the judge introduces each party of the case.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

53. Thanks a lot.......

Just when I thought I would never have to read another one of these damnable opinions, along comes on I simply can't wait to read.

Ain't life grand (sometimes)?

Thanks again.

[Squatch]

58. Sure thing...it's actually a good read.

[SW FL Dem]

86. Especially the last few pages

Took a while to read the whole thing but it was well worth it!!

[slackmaster]

140. Decision is a GREAT read - highly recommended!

I particularly enjoyed the discussion "4. Whether ID is Science" that begins on page 64. The whole document is a withering attack on ID promoters' duplicitous claims that they aren't really pushing Biblical creationism.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

40. There was a

perfectly brilliant article about this trial and the judge in a recent New Yorker.

He was depicted as a smart, tough, funny man, and I remember thinking that he couldn't do anything else but ditch these assholes.

Here's a nice summary of the article - http://tinyurl.com/8mz3a - and here's the artwork that accompanied it:




"...the best part is the full-page caricature drawing of the lead plaintiffs’ attorney, Eric Rothschild, cross examining the star “intelligent design” witness, Michael Behe...The caption read,'At the trial, Michael Behe, the leading intellectual of intelligent design, was cross-examined with cheerful mercilessness by Eric Rothschild. For six weeks, the courtroom of Judge John E. Jones III was
like the biology class you wished you could have taken'."

[kay1864]

43. Great minds think alike!

Heh-heh...we both posted Behe pics! Although I must admit I like yours much better! LOL

[Squatch]

46. Here's a gem from the opinion:

"With surprising candor considering his otherwise inconsistent and non-credible testimony, Buckingham (DASD school board) did admit that he made this statement."

Statement in question was one in which Buckingham rejected approval of a standard biology textbook as it was "laced with Darwinism" for a more "balanced" text that handled both creationism and evolution on equal ground.

This judge is a hoot. He pretty much calls each of the defense's witness liars at one point or another.

[Squatch]

47. And, here's another gem

regarding Buckingham's testimony:

-the separation of church and state is a myth and is not something he supports.

"This country wasn't founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution. This country was founded on Christianity and our students should be taught as such." -Buckingham

[kay1864]

56. Unfortunately...

pinhead Buckingham (IIRC he and Alan Bonsell were the ringleaders) was not up for re-election, since he resigned in August 2005 for health reasons. Maybe he saw which way the wind was blowing?

At least we can rejoice that the rest of them (including Bonsell) were tossed by the fine residents of Dover.

Lesson here people? PAY ATTENTION to who is nominated to your local school boards! Direct result of Ralph Reed's stealth tactics.



Next year's present: Ralphie's election campaign going down in flames.

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :bounce:

[kay1864]

50. Yeah, I hate it when...

biology textbooks are laced with Darwinism. What were the authors thinking??

Next thing you know they'll be lacing physics textbooks with Newtonism. Or *gasp* Einsteinism.

[0rganism]

137. Oh Snap! It's a brilliant legal opinion, a total smackdown to the fundies

and the fact that this judge is a shrub appointee only sweetens the deal for me.

Yowza! This one gets the triple woohoo!
:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[Jim__]

36. More good news! - n/t

[kay1864]

39. Portrait of a LOSER...

Lehigh University professor Michael Behe, wearing hat, speaks to reporters after testifying in federal court in Harrisburg, Pa., Monday, Oct. 17, 2005. Evolutionary theory should be taught to science students, but it alone cannot explain complex biological phenomenon, said Behe, who is a leading advocate of ``intelligent design.'' Behe was the first witness called by a school board that is requiring students to hear a statement about the concept in biology class. The federal trial could decide whether intelligent design can be mentioned in public school science classes as an alternative to the theory of evolution. (AP Photo/Bradley C. Bower)

What a weasel. If it weren't for tenure he would have been booted by now. Oh well, at least that RW lying law professor is out of a job...

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/net/20051220/capt.f6433820c85f91c96e2ca60de8e5cb05.pjpeg

[OldLeftieLawyer]

54. I know Lehigh,

and I cannot believe anyone in the administration there is happy with this clown.

Fight on, Engineers!

[kay1864]

60. Didn't the Lehigh biology department...

pointedly distance themselves from him recently, b/c of his pro-ID testimony? Posted on their website or something?

Jeez I hate it when I can't remember things instantly anymore. Thank ghod for the internets...

[OldLeftieLawyer]

63. Oh, I hope so

A good friend of mine told me recently how, all his life, when people asked him where he went to college, he'd answer, "Lehigh," and they'd always respond with, "Yes, but where did you go to college?"

You're right about not remembering. Thank doG for google, eh?

:woohoo:
:applause:

[kay1864]

68. Okay you made me do it...

I looked up Behe in Wikipedia. Nearly sprained my finger with all the mouse clicks (two to be exact).

Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm

Waytogo Lehigh! Way to b***h-slap Michael upside da head!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

72. Whew!!!

Thanks a million, and try Motrin for that finger.

I'm a native Keystone Stater, not far from Lehigh, and it's a terrifically conservative area, but this opinion suggests to me that at least one judge understands the true meaning of "conservatism," and it specifically means keeping doG and all that dogma out of our taxpayer-funded school districts.

Thank you again.

[MarinCoUSA]

125. Very conservative area but not totally stupid

Keystoner, too.

My folks are real east coast republican country club types and I can tell you they- and all their friends- hate the modern Texas-Confederate flat-earth republican party. Last time I visited my mom lit into Bush "If one of my kids got killed in Iraq I would...." These people have been republicans since the 1860 election for Lincoln. And now the worm has turned.

[kay1864]

41. Another pdf...

If you want a good laugh (or maybe a cry), here's the (very biased) newsletter I mentioned above. The link has been removed (HA!) from the Dover district website, but the document is still there:

http://www.dover.k12.pa.us/doversd/lib/doversd/DASD_Biology_Update_2-05.pdf

At least there's no picture of Rickie, so you won't lose your lunch...

[Canuckistanian]

42. It's now officially international news

Just heard the lead story on our local CBC National News about this very ruling.

Oh, and Welcome To DU!

:toast:

[Sinistrous]

44. If you want to get a sense of the magnitude of this decision,

just try to imagine the situation had the judge ruled the other way. Theocracy would have received a tremendous boost, science education across the country would have received a near fatal wound, science in general would have been put on the defensive and forced to waste time, energy, and resources defending nearly everything done without the aegis of theocratic approval.

This was a big one. :toast:


Sinistrous

[kay1864]

48. No kidding!

I've been waiting on this decision all morning, hitting "refresh" on cnn.com every 2 min. Woo-hoo!

Although I must admit I couldn't see it going the other way. It was too clear-cut. My concern is that he was going to go with the narrow ruling (saying they were motivated by religion, but not ruling on ID itself), and avoid the Constitutional question. Instead he hit one out of the park.

Way to go Judge Jones! :yourock:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

57. Yes, this is what some might call

HUGH!!!11111!!!!1!!!!

I'm SERIES!111111!!!

I just had the thought: can you honestly imagine any of the freepers actually READING this decision and understanding any of it?

Further proof that Intelligent Design isn't.

[kay1864]

61. Freepers can READ??

I thought they could only listen to RW talk radio and watch FauxNews on the TV! LOL

[OldLeftieLawyer]

66. No, silly.......

Of course they can read. How do you think they post on that message board?

They can't spell or punctuate or form a coherent sentence.

But, they can read.

I'm SERIES!@2!!!!!11111!!!!1

[kay1864]

70. Oh I know...

but I couldn't help myself. Reminded me of Draco Malfoy to Goyle "Reading? I didn't know you could read".

(Harry Potter geek reference now set to OFF)

[OldLeftieLawyer]

74. Did I mention

"Welcome to DU!"?

You've done such a splendid job of researching, you have earned the coveted (and only awarded maybe once or twenty times a day) Pussycat!!! (You're off to a great start, friend.)

[stepnw1f]

91. lol1!!!11!!!!11!!!1

That made me laugh... thanks!

[SW FL Dem]

90. LOL

I'm a lawyer and I savored every word!

[hootinholler]

51. Perhaps the Judge was touched by a noodly appendage? n/t

[LynneSin]

55. I'm so glad the new school board didn't pull out for the conclusion

I was reading the news stories about the Federal Judge's ruling in the Dover School District Intelligent Design plan and thinking a bit about this ruling.

As everyone knows, in Nov2005, the pro-ID Dover School board was replaced with an anti-ID school board. Every member was replaced except the only pro-ID that wasn't up for re-election (and there is a run-off for one of the races).

The new school board said that ID should be saved for elective religion classes not biology and that they would allow the current court case to run it's course (they knew the ruling was expected a month later).

Thank goodness they did because those pro-ID people needed a serious bitch-slapping

[kay1864]

64. I'd sure like to see...

a "Where are they now?" on the ex-board members. Prolly peddling their "look how we were persecuted" stories to fundie churches.

At least with all the notoriety, NONE of them (we can only pray) will ever get any kind of jobs with the public school system.

[LynneSin]

67. There's actually a run-off for one of the seats

'faulty election equipment'

The guy is an alumni of my alma mater so I'm going to find out how to donate to help him win!

[durablend]

145. You guessed it---WAH WAH WAH

They had one of the ex-board members on the news whining about how "activist judges are stifling their rights" and that this decision definitely isn't the end of it.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

62. Just got this piece from the judges decision

got to love this. He actually spoke the truth.

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an
activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court.
Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction
on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a
constitutional test case on ID,"....The breathtaking inanity of the
Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which
has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers
of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

[caligirl]

69. Wonder if this helps the UC case?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051127/news_1n27ucsuit.html

"Lawyers for the plaintiffs contend this dispute came up two years ago when UC admissions officials began closely examining Calvary Chapel's courses and texts that emphasized Christianity. Among the rejected courses were biology classes with texts by A Beka Book and Bob Jones University Press, both conservative Christian publishers. Courses titled "Special Providence: American Government" and "Christianity and Morality in American Literature" were also rejected.

The lawsuit argues that it is unfair these courses were nixed while others titled "Western Civilization: The Jewish Experience" and "Intro to Buddhism" were approved. "

[kay1864]

78. The IDiots have spoken!

The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work," said Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, the nation's leading think tank researching the scientific theory known as intelligent design.

Newsflash, "Dr." West: the Honorable Judge Jones is way ahead of you:

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial.

[Squatch]

81. Got to keep the controversy burning, yano?

[kay1864]

83. Doncha just love...

his false bravado? "it won't work"

Hey "Dr." West, it just DID work, REAL science has prevailed, your statement was SPIKED the moment it came out, and funding for your Institute will soon go south, just like it did for the Christian Coalition.

Did I mention that I'm :bounce: today?

[kay1864]

87. Oh and there's more...

“A legal ruling can't change the fact that there is digital code in DNA, it can’t remove the molecular machines from the cell, nor change the fine tuning of the laws of physics,” added West.

Uh-huh. Lots of world-respected biologists use all that to support intelligent design. Oops, my mistake, all that evidence is actually support for evolution, now isn't it?

"Anyone who thinks a court ruling is going to kill off interest in intelligent design is living in another world," continued West. "Americans don't like to be told there is some idea that they aren't permitted to learn about.. It used to be said that banning a book in Boston guaranteed it would be a bestseller. Banning intelligent design in Dover will likely only fan interest in the theory."

HAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA! That's a good one, tell me another!

Is it me or is he really sounding desperate at this point?

"In the larger debate over intelligent design, this decision will be of minor significance," added Discovery Institute attorney Casey Luskin. "As we've repeatedly stressed, the ultimate validity of intelligent will be determined not by the courts but by the scientific evidence pointing to design.”

Oh you wish, counselor. Too bad you can't spout your pandas-and-people "scientific evidence pointing to design" in the schools now, eh?

Luskin pointed out that the ruling only applies to the federal district in which it was handed down. It has no legal effect anywhere else.

Yeah right. Now I'm no lawyer, but isn't there something called precedent, that other lawsuits can cite now? And won't this have a chilling effect on other school districts?

So Mr. Luskin, doesn't this make your statement just more wishful thinking?

The decision is also unlikely to be appealed, since the recently elected Dover school board members campaigned on their opposition to the policy.

Well they finally got something right.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

106. My $.02 worth

I'm compelled to add to your most excellent post, if you don't mind:

As to the DNA remark, SO THE FUCK WHAT? It's non-responsive, and I ask Your Honor to have that stricken from the record.

As to the "fan interest in the theory" remark, I would urge those who are interested to hurry to the house of worship of their choice, and, to the speaker, I would urge said speaker not to whistle so loudly in the dark.

As to the "ultimate validity" remark, the speaker has clearly failed to take note of the reality that there's no valid - his word - research that points to design. Perhaps his clerical collar is on a little too tight?

Oh, that's not a collar?

Sorry.

As to the reach and breadth of this decision, he's correct. This is persuasive, but not controlling, authority - which means it might be cited in similar cases in other jurisdictions, but has no binding effect.

It is, however, a very nice start to keeping these evolutionary errors - the creationists - out of our taxpayer-funded school districts.

As for the appeal, oh, there'll be an appeal. You can count on it. I don't know why anyone would think otherwise.

Here - give one of them a banana, for their nerves.

[stepnw1f]

89. Keep Your Religious Mumbojumbo Out of Tax Payed Schools

Or else everyone else with have to have their own beliefs taught in every public school out there.

Stupid power hungry insecure people. Fanatics, get over it already!

[NC_Nurse]

93. Judge: Intelligent Design Doesn't Belong In Science Class

HARRISBURG, Pa. -- Intelligent design cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.





http://www.wral.com/education/5586914/detail.html

[BiggJawn]

95. Flying Spaghetti Monster be PRAISED!

We have INDEED been touched by His Noodly Appendage this day!

If PA had gon the way of Kansastan, I would be seriously considering whetrer it was safe, as an "out" Atheist, to stay in this burgeoning Theocracy or not.

[kay1864]

97. You and me both, friend

Even though I live in a metro area with seven UU churches, I feel the intrusion all the time. This country is starting to look like this:





Europeans are baffled/amazed at how Xianity intrudes on our politics at all levels. I say, keep it in the churches where it belongs.



:eyes:

[The Flaming Red Head]

99. You can't teach Biology without Evolution (you can't)

I was in core science courses (both college level) just recently. In (Biology one) class they were told to scrap Evolution altogether and they had to leave out around 10 or 11 chapters in the text and the rest of the book made no sense without it. (unless you had the science background)

The next one was called Evolutionary Biology (Biology two) He taught Evolution and he asked to us review ID online (I think they made him do it) and he asked us what we thought of it and everyone agreed it was total nonsense (a way to sell books and make money, but not credible science) I made As in both.

I'd already completed Microbiology and A&P 1 and 2, but my current school decided not to accept my transfer credits from my previous school ( as cores or sciences), so the Bio 1 & 2 were all a breeze to me.

But now I have 24 credits in Biology (I only needed 8 for a BA) and no degree in anything and they're (this school) probably graduating the ID crowd along side the rest of them by now.

[eppur_se_muova]

103. "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution."

There's a standard textbook that opens with that statement. Sets the tone right from the start.

edited to correct quote

[The Flaming Red Head]

121. ID is a scam to make money off the fundies and the rest of US

All they want to do is sell books, course material, tapes and lectures. The intelligent design people are nothing but a bunch of con artist.

Can you imagine how many dollars they'll make if it becomes required course material?

And they don't even make sense.

[rman]

158. ... and to serve as a major wedge issue,

to scare fundies into thinking liberals are out to take religion away from them.

[0rganism]

136. It'd be like teaching Chemistry without the atomic model

or Physics without the concepts of force and acceleration.

truncated chemistry = alchemy
truncated physics = astrology
truncated biology = creationism

Wow, it's all so... pre-Renaissance.

[AX10]

101. Good. Schools are meant to educate, not promote ignorance.

:kick:

[eppur_se_muova]

104. 3 big ones for Judge Jones! Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah!

He didn't settle for just telling them they were wrong, in a narrow legal sense, he made it clear that they were ridiculous in the most literal sense -- that is, deserving of ridicule.

Save a Medal of Freedom for Judge Jones, once they recover in value again.

[DaveColorado]

105. Someone should point out this is a Bush Jr appointed judge

[Peace Patriot]

116. Go, Judge Jones! But I have a different perspective on 'intelligent design

I think it SHOULD BE presented in science classes as an example of the human brain's ability to argue about nothing based on no evidence.

We SEEK design. We WANT design. We see design everywhere, even where it may not, objectively, exist. We IMPOSE design. We CRAVE design, and all that it means: an orderly, understandable, non-chaotic, predictable, non-scary world. We do it in science. We do it in every other field of endeavor. The question is, WHY? Is this just the only way that we humans can get through the day--by imposing and imagining design, order and relationships among things everywhere we look? Or is it a property of the objective world? IS there an objective world?

The trouble with the rightwing and its nutso campaigns to make people stupid again, is that they force intelligent people into what may be unintelligent and unwise positions--that this question of "intelligent design" is not a scientific question. In fact, it is. And the question itself--and even the most idiotic and political iterations of it--SHOULD BE the subject of scientific investigation.

[dfgrbac]

123. But not in biology class!

Intelligent Design could be discussed freely in a philosophy class, or in a class studying intelligence.

[drhilarius]

122. All I can say is suck it IDiots....

today was a triumph of reason over superstition.

[MarinCoUSA]

124. ID = "breathtaking inanity" I like that! I really like that!

n/t

[yellowcanine]

127. Freepers are devouring each other over this one.......enjoy and pass the

popcorn. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543993/posts

[Realityhack]

134. WOW....

some of them are actualy on the right side on this!

And the rest are freeping retarded.

[lakercub]

160. Freeprs are ridiculous

but they have some evolutionists over there who really know what they are talking about. They can actually be quite informative on the topic. That group is also scared to death of the fundies because they know that eventually the fundies will bring them down.

[NoAmericanTaliban]

135. Judge John Jones - Wingnut enemy #1...

Will Pat Robertson send him to hell?
Has Judge Jones made the Delay hit list?
What diaster will hit godless Dover next?
WWJD?

Quote from wingnut "Those damm activist judges- Maybe we don't need no stinking judges at all..."

Stayed Tuned to DU to find out what will happend next in
"As the Wingnuts Turn"



:)

[alcibiades_mystery]

142. ABSOLUTELY BEST PASSAGE IN THE OPINION

Although Defendants attempt to persuade this Court that each Board
member who voted for the biology curriculum change did so for the secular
purposed of improving science education and to exercise critical thinking skills,
their contentions are simply irreconcilable with the record evidence. Their asserted
purposes are a sham, and they are accordingly unavailing, for the reasons that
follow.

We initially note that the Supreme Court has instructed that while courts are
“normally deferential to a State’s articulation of a secular purpose, it is required
that the statement of such purpose be sincere and not a sham.” Edwards, 482 U.S.
at 586-87 (citing Wallace, 472 U.S. at 64)(Powell, J., concurring); id. at 75
(O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment). Although as noted Defendants have
consistently asserted that the ID Policy was enacted for the secular purposes of
improving science education and encouraging students to exercise critical thinking
skills, the Board took none of the steps that school officials would take if these
stated goals had truly been their objective. The Board consulted no scientific
materials. The Board contacted no scientists or scientific organizations. The
Board failed to consider the views of the District’s science teachers. The Board
relied solely on legal advice from two organizations with demonstrably religious,
cultural, and legal missions, the Discovery Institute and the TMLC. Moreover,
Defendants’ asserted secular purpose of improving science education is belied by
the fact that most if not all of the Board members who voted in favor of the biology
curriculum change conceded that they still do not know, nor have they ever known,
precisely what ID is. To assert a secular purpose against this backdrop is
ludicrous.

Finally, although Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance
themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious,
untruthful testimony, such a strategy constitutes additional strong evidence of
improper purpose under the first prong of the Lemon test. As exhaustively detailed
herein, the thought leaders on the Board made it their considered purpose to inject
some form of creationism into the science classrooms, and by the dint of their
personalities and persistence they were able to pull the majority of the Board along
in their collective wake.

Any asserted secular purposes by the Board are a sham and are merely
secondary to a religious objective. McCreary, 125 S. Ct. at 2735; accord, e.g.,
Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 308 (“it is . . . the duty of the courts to ‘distinguish a sham
secular purpose from a sincere one.’” (citation omitted)); Edwards, 482 U.S. at
586-87 (“While the Court is normally deferential to a State’s articulation of a
secular purpose, it is required that the statement of such purpose be sincere and not
a sham.”). Defendants’ previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to
the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce that any
allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID Policy are
equally insincere.

Accordingly, 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, in violation of the Establishment Clause.

--------------------END SECTION---------------------------

Absolutely scathing. :rofl:

[atommom]

147. Breathtaking inanity indeed! I love you, Judge Jones!

:applause: :woohoo: :loveya:

P.S. Wanna move to Kansas? We could use your help here.

[American liberal]

150. God bless Judge Jones n/t

[American liberal]

151. I mean, God bless Bush-appointed Judge Jones. It's poetic :)

[Placebo]

153. Amen!

:D

[Zhade]

155. Good.

It's not science. Never was.

[bearfan454]

162. Halla-fucking-leujah !

Finally a federal judge stands up to these right wing religious fundy whackos.

[globalvillage]

164. I believe ID should be taught in schools

Also Matholicism.
Matholics believe that the '+' is the one true sign, and that by placing it between two numbers and praying, you will find the correct answer.

[Strong Atheist]

166. Good. Sanity is spreading. nt.

[hansberrym]

175. "well aware that Almighty God has created the mind free; ...

that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring..."


Would a reasonable observer, using the tests (below) devised by the courts, come to the conclusion that Jefferson's Virgina Act for Establishing Religious Freedon (quoted above)is actually a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Would a reasonable person find Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance also unconstitutional?



From Memorial and Remonstrance:
"We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,
1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority."



From Kitzmiller:
"In elaborating upon this “reasonable observer,” the Third Circuit explained in Modrovich, 385 F.3d at 407, that “the reasonable observer is an informed citizen who is more knowledgeable than the average passerby.” Moreover, in addition to knowing the challenged conduct’s history, the observer is deemed able to “glean other relevant facts” from the face of the policy in light of its context. Id. at 407; accord Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 779-781 (1995) (O’Connor, J., concurring). Knowing the challenged policy’s legislative history, the community’s history, and the broader social and historical context in which the policy arose, the objective observer thus considers the publicly available evidence relevant to the purpose inquiry, but notably does not do so to ascertain, strictly speaking, what the governmental purpose actually was. See, e.g., Selman, 390 F. Supp. 2d at 1306-07. Instead, the observer looks to that evidence to ascertain whether the policy “in fact conveys a message of endorsement or disapproval” of religion, irrespective of what the government might have intended by it. Lynch, 465 U.S. at 690 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (“The central issue in this case is whether has endorsed Christianity by its . To answer that question, we must examine both what intended to communicate . . . and what message actually conveyed. The purpose and effect prongs of the Lemon test represent these two aspects of the meaning of the action.”); Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Bd. of Educ., 975 F.
Supp. 819 (E.D. La. 1997), aff’d, 185 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 1999); Selman, 390 F.
Supp. 2d at 1305-06.
We must now ascertain whether the ID Policy “in fact conveys a message of
endorsement or disapproval” of religion, with the reasonable, objective observer being the hypothetical construct to consider this issue. Lynch, 465 U.S. at 690 (O’Connor, J., concurring). As the endorsement test is designed to ascertain the objective meaning of the statement that the District’s conduct communicated in the community by focusing on how “the members of the listening audience” perceived the conduct, two inquiries must be made based upon the circumstances of this case."



Does the following convey an "endorsement" of religion under the Courts' tests?

"It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe...".



Would the legislative history of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment force us to conclude that it violates itself?
(using the courts' tests)


Or does a review of history force reasonable people to conclude that the tests derived by the courts do not make sense?