Judge Rejects ID in PA -

KSig RC · #1 12-21-2005, 04:02 PM

Quote:

HARRISBURG, Pa., Dec. 20 - A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that it was unconstitutional for a Pennsylvania school district to present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in high school biology courses because it is a religious viewpoint that advances "a particular version of Christianity."

(From: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/ed...evolution.html )

DeltAlum · #2 12-21-2005, 04:50 PM

Sanity prevails

Rudey · #3 12-21-2005, 05:09 PM

I'm thinking about replying to one of those ads to become an ordained preacher so I can marry people.

-Rudey

Coramoor · #4 12-21-2005, 05:15 PM

Nothing wrong with learning about other view points and theories. Only the small minded and ignorant go into a hissy fit in the face of different ideas.

The best arguments are presented by those people that understand both sides.

AlphaFrog · #5 12-21-2005, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Coramoor
The best arguments are presented by those people that understand both sides.

The only problem is...this isn't a BOTH sides kinda thing...it's a MANY sides kind of thing. In order to teach all the different points of view to the extent needed to do justice to all of them, you'd pretty much need a seperate course. And they have yet to come up with a theory that doesn't have holes all in it. (Even if you believe in creation, you still have to take a huge amount on faith, which, while I am Christian, I will agree does not belong in a science class).

Coramoor · #6 12-21-2005, 05:21 PM

What you are taught about physics is totally wrong as well. It's still taught in school.

A separate course in the origins of life wouldn't be a bad thing. I mean, that's where we all came from. What could be more interesting than that-whatever the real reason is.

KSig RC · #7 12-21-2005, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Coramoor
What you are taught about physics is totally wrong as well. It's still taught in school.

Explain.

Quote:

Originally posted by Coramoor
A separate course in the origins of life wouldn't be a bad thing. I mean, that's where we all came from. What could be more interesting than that-whatever the real reason is.

Effective Biology courses teach just this - the science of life, without mumbo jumbo like "It's too complex, it must be God" . . . alternate causation is only legit if it can be supported.

Coramoor · #8 12-21-2005, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KSig RC
Explain.

Newtonian physics, what you learn in highschool and up until some of the more advanced course in college is wrong. It doesn't fit all models.

It's good enough to work with so we understand it, but the theories presented are not correct. Quantum and String are better, but still no perfect.

I'm not a physics major by any means, so more indepth stuff will have to be explained by someone else. I just know some of the basics and where the theories don't work.

Effective Biology courses teach just this - the science of life, without mumbo jumbo like "It's too complex, it must be God" . . . alternate causation is only legit if it can be supported.

That's when it comes down to a philosophical question.

Optimist Prime · #9 12-21-2005, 05:53 PM

yes. You should take both biology and philosophy so you can recognize the difference and get a balanced look at the world. You=anyone, not someone specific, in the above sentance.

KSig RC · #10 12-21-2005, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Coramoor
Newtonian physics, what you learn in highschool and up until some of the more advanced course in college is wrong. It doesn't fit all models.

It's good enough to work with so we understand it, but the theories presented are not correct. Quantum and String are better, but still no perfect.

OK - this is what I thought you were referring to.

Newtonian physics is completely accurate for most situations in which it's presented - it's a classic 'on-paper' model. It does have holes, agreed, but it's not implicitly 'false' . . .

Plus, they're both very similar to evolution, in that the high-end theoretical physics models are constantly being revised as new information fits the theories. That's a good distinction between them, and something like ID.

Otherwise, I agree that there should be some philosophy/humanities courses available - something that teaches mythology from different world religions, including creation mythology, would be ideal.

alphaxikt · #11 12-21-2005, 06:43 PM

This debate isn't about the validity of intelligent design, it's about what is or isn't science. ID isn't.

Tom Earp · #12 12-21-2005, 07:01 PM

Newton Went Egads, I found Gravity! I had an Apple fall out of the tree that I was passed out under! It hit Me on the HeaD!

Intelligent Design, well, I never really understood the big ta do!

Is there a God who made Man and Women?

Are There Aliens who promagated Earth?

Well, I am from a One Cell Thing that came upon the dry earth from the water.

I was not there when all of this came about! If God Created Earth, Animals, Man and Woman in Six Days and on the Seventh, He rested. How long were The Days? Who was there to so Judge?

My Bet is on People from Mars! But, Where in the hell did they come from?

DeltAlum · #13 12-21-2005, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by alphaxikt
This debate isn't about the validity of intelligent design, it's about what is or isn't science. ID isn't.

The debate and the court case as well.

squirrely girl · #14 12-22-2005, 01:27 PM

yah know - i don't mind if somebody presenta the "world on the back of a turtle" design - but not in a damn bio class.

some people are so eager for their opinions and views to be presented they'll do it at the cost of real science.

an origins of human kinda type class is great - if you're paying for it as an elective in college. not if it is force fed in public school.

- marissa

DeltAlum · #15 12-22-2005, 02:06 PM

Interesting note from NPR is that the judge mentioned in his decision that in one filing, the school board allegedly did a global search in the word processor and replaced the word "Creationism" with "Intelligent Disign" around 150 times and submitted the same brief. I guess another court had already ruled on that submission.

The judge apparantely wasn't amused.