p0300
abx
URGENT
AP-EVOLUTION DEBATE, 1ST LD
Federal judge in Pennsylvania rules 'intelligent design' can't be taught in schools
Eds: UPDATES with ruling
By MARTHA RAFFAELE
Associated Press Writer
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) - A federal judge ruled Tuesday that "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 ******* "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.
Nimrod's Son
12-20-2005, 02:20 PM
Yeah, if you try hard enough you can find a federal judge to agree with anything
This will be appealed
Debaser
12-20-2005, 02:59 PM
so you think that ID should be taught in biology, nimmy?
Debaser
12-20-2005, 03:02 PM
LOL, I think I heard on a right wing radio program this morning that this judge was a known staunch Republican. So I make a quick search in wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_E._Jones_III
"...Jones earned his bachelor of arts from Dickinson College in 1977 and his law degree from Dickinson School of Law in 1980. What is not widely known is that he cheated throughout his academic career and continues to defie the law and is fast becoming a true bastard and piece of shit. After clerking for Guy A. Bowe in Schuylkill County from 1980 to 1983, he served as an Assistant Public Defender until 1995...."
somebody is mad.
Nimrod's Son
12-20-2005, 04:59 PM
And you wonder why I don't regard wiki as a very good source
Corganist
12-20-2005, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
so you think that ID should be taught in biology, nimmy?
So you think that Federal Judges should have a say in determining the curriculum of schools?
Nimrod's Son
12-20-2005, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
so you think that ID should be taught in biology, nimmy?
I think it's good and healthy to mention it, but not focus on it. Maybe a 3-4 minute mention at the beginning of evolutionary study would be ok, but in no way should it be required. The thing is, ID and evolution aren't opposites. ID requires evolution to be a theory in order for it to exist.
I am not a proponent of a federal judge either requiring or dismissing any discussion of ID though. This shouldn't be a mandate.
've always had the opinion that the Vatican recently released, that there is no disconnect between evolution and the Bible and that both can exist harmoniously. Evolution is no more against the Bible than.. magnetism, string theory, etc
Debaser
12-20-2005, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Corganist
So you think that Federal Judges should have a say in determining the curriculum of schools?
dodge.
its a public school, is it not? there is a separation between church and state, is there not?
do you think ID should be taught in BIOLOGY class, corgy?
mpp
12-20-2005, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by Corganist
So you think that Federal Judges should have a say in determining the curriculum of schools?
Of course I do. Local school boards are too biased and wrong-minded to know what's good for the kids in their respective districts. :) I gest, I gest.
Seriously, though, the main purpose behind the presentation of ID in schools is for Christian religious ideals to be showcased in basic junior high and high school science classes alongside scientific theories like evolution.
This is a violation of the Constitutional protections of the Pa. and US constitutions in that it helps to either undermine or establish religion in public schools, and if a federal court's gotta step in and help solve the problem then so be it. States rights aren't all they're cracked up to be.
But, that's all beside the point. Read the opinion and see what you think. I think he makes a good case. It's quite a through framework of the current ID/evolution debate. You can find it at cnn.com.
mpp
12-20-2005, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Evolution is no more against the Bible than.. magnetism, string theory, etc
That's fine, but it's apparent that you don't adhere to the mpp-often-quoted "false dichtomy" that such Christian fundamentalists and ID proponents set up in order to better present the theory of creationism after the Supreme Court's smack-down in the Edwards case. To wit, it's either anti-god evolution or the Bible...and that's all there can be.
sppunk
12-20-2005, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Corganist
So you think that Federal Judges should have a say in determining the curriculum of schools? Considering those schools are partially federally funded, hell yes.
Debaser
12-20-2005, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
And you wonder why I don't regard wiki as a very good source
i dont.
Corganist
12-20-2005, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
dodge.
its a public school, is it not? there is a separation between church and state, is there not?
do you think ID should be taught in BIOLOGY class, corgy?
No. I just don't like the idea of a Federal judge ruling on what constitutes "science" (which is what this judge did). If there's gonna be a legal standard of what is "science" and what isn't, then it shouldn't be in the hands of judges. Just because judge #1 decides ID isn't science doesn't mean judge #2 won't...and also doesn't mean Supreme Court Justices #1-5 won't either.
I don't know about other places, but my law school doesn't offer biology classes.
cowbite
12-20-2005, 06:59 PM
A few things:
The judge is a raging republican (appointed by George W. Bush in 2002). So much for the 'liberal activist' argument.
I highly doubt this will go any higher. The ID camp wouldn't gain anything. It's hard to successfully appeal a ruling so well spelled out. They'd rather just drum up public support using the 'activist judge HURRR' argument. However, I'd like to see it go as high as possible and witness that spanking.
I have no intentions of making this another intelligent design debate, but jesus christ people, it's sad that we even needed a ruling on this.
mpp
12-20-2005, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by Corganist
No. I just don't like the idea of a Federal judge ruling on what constitutes "science" (which is what this judge did). If there's gonna be a legal standard of what is "science" and what isn't, then it shouldn't be in the hands of judges. Just because judge #1 decides ID isn't science doesn't mean judge #2 won't...and also doesn't mean Supreme Court Justices #1-5 won't either.
I don't know about other places, but my law school doesn't offer biology classes.
perhaps, but it certainly is his job to interpret whether or not discussing ID in public schools has the effect of either undermining or establishing religion in public schools
didn't you study judicial review in law school? the school board's decision has the effect of a law, ie a local ordinance; the district's subject matter jursidiction is NECESSARILY implicated
sleeper
12-20-2005, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
I think it's good and healthy to mention it, but not focus on it. Maybe a 3-4 minute mention at the beginning of evolutionary study would be ok, but in no way should it be required. The thing is, ID and evolution aren't opposites. ID requires evolution to be a theory in order for it to exist.
I am not a proponent of a federal judge either requiring or dismissing any discussion of ID though. This shouldn't be a mandate.
've always had the opinion that the Vatican recently released, that there is no disconnect between evolution and the Bible and that both can exist harmoniously. Evolution is no more against the Bible than.. magnetism, string theory, etc
i know all about how we should keep a decorum of politeness and not launch personal attacks and yadda yadda, but your are a tremendous fucking moron. there i said it. holy shit was that last post stupid.
i dont give a flying shit about anything else, you are hugely stupid. end of discussion.
i dont give a fuck. im going to say it. lets just drop the charade already. it was just way too much this time. way too much
sleeper
12-20-2005, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by Corganist
No. I just don't like the idea of a Federal judge ruling on what constitutes "science" (which is what this judge did). If there's gonna be a legal standard of what is "science" and what isn't, then it shouldn't be in the hands of judges. Just because judge #1 decides ID isn't science doesn't mean judge #2 won't...and also doesn't mean Supreme Court Justices #1-5 won't either.
I don't know about other places, but my law school doesn't offer biology classes.
no, this was about what constitutes "religion" and it was his decision, rightly so, that ID was it. religion -- as is often said -- in a cheap tuxedo. fact. theres very little to nitpick about here, its all very clear. crystal
you throw dust in peoples eyes with this nonsense about defining science, please stop. you dont have to know what something is to know what it isnt, corganist
sleeper
12-20-2005, 09:12 PM
its absolutely jaw-on-the-floor stunning to me that theyre now playing this up as both an "activist judge" thing and, oh my god, an anti-science thing. they obviously dont believe their own lies with this so thats not what im talking about, but rather that they have got to have balls of steel to bring up such a twisted load of shit. it truly shocked me. shocked. i shook and had my mouth agape. check out this:
"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 leading think tank researching intelligent design.
and this
"A thousand opinions by a court that a particular scientific theory is invalid will not make that scientific theory invalid," said Mr. Thompson, the president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest firm that says it promotes Christian values. "It is going to be up to the scientists who are going to continue to do research in their labs that will ultimately determine that."
i cant even believe it
sleeper
12-20-2005, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by cowbite
A few things:
The judge is a raging republican (appointed by George W. Bush in 2002). So much for the 'liberal activist' argument.
I highly doubt this will go any higher. The ID camp wouldn't gain anything. It's hard to successfully appeal a ruling so well spelled out. They'd rather just drum up public support using the 'activist judge HURRR' argument. However, I'd like to see it go as high as possible and witness that spanking.
I have no intentions of making this another intelligent design debate, but jesus christ people, it's sad that we even needed a ruling on this.
i think theyll continue on, but in different ways. just like how they changed clothes from creationism to ID, theyre going to change from ID to something else. i think its important to recognize that this was just one manifestation of a drive towards much broader goals. theyll continue to attack science, and any number of other things, because they threaten their beliefs and values, but maybe no longer on school curriculum or on evolution in particular. i can definitely see this movement coming back out of the sewer again for a different fight. theres no reason to think theyll stop. i mean, lets face it, these people are not lorded over by reason
mpp
12-20-2005, 09:48 PM
it's amazing to turn on Bill O'Reilly and listen to how much they think this decision was a "bad" "activist" decision "even though the judge is a republican appointed by george w. bush"
the decision was a sound application of supreme court precedent; decisions such as Lemon, Edwards, and McLean are well-established and well-reasoned decisions on First Amendment doctrine
i mean, isn't this a big part of what we left europe for? shouldn't the local governing bodies be stopped from imposing religion on schoolchildren, most of whom can't choose whether to attend that school or not? intelligent design is nothing more than creation science dressed up to fit post-Edwards federal jurisprudence
again, READ THE CASE...at least part of it; take it in; see the precedent; see the outright, baldface LIES that were told DURING the trial...these people are so hungry to get christianity taught in schools that they're turning away from one of the basics tenets of any religion (See Commandment #9), swearing out false testimony
www.cnn.com
sleeper
12-20-2005, 09:57 PM
not only is he not activist, he is widely respected and has a solid record. just immediately attacking the judge on something like this is beyond ridiculous. where are these peoples minds?
i was going to ask you: did you read the whole decision? i downloaded the pdf of it before but only read the conclusion (which is great) because its pretty long. is it worth reading the whole thing or would it just be redundant?
sleeper
12-20-2005, 10:00 PM
this was pretty good
from a few days ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/national/18judge.html
mpp
12-20-2005, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by sleeper
i was going to ask you: did you read the whole decision? i downloaded the pdf of it before but only read the conclusion (which is great) because its pretty long. is it worth reading the whole thing or would it just be redundant?
I printed it out and I've made it through about 60 pages. It's an amazing read, and I'd highly recommend it. He puts the fucking smack down. I'm not even to the best part, which is where the judge calls out all the liars on the school board.
They LIED repeatedly under oath.
Also, there's a cool synopsis of the differences in the "ID" literature and the "creationism" literature pre-Edwards. They basically under changed the words...no content changed at al from 1987 till now!!
sleeper
12-20-2005, 10:04 PM
yeah i thought so. i was a bit warry of reading it because i thought it be all legal speak and whatever but, from what ive read so far, its pretty raucous and entertaining
§
mpp
12-20-2005, 10:04 PM
I'll admit the one thing I didn't like was assigning the payment of the plaintiffs' attorneys fees to the defendant district. That will do nothing but create hundreds of similar suits around the country.
Then again, that could be good.
I jsut think it could've been accomplished w/o taxing the kids tens of thousands o dollars or more.
mpp
12-20-2005, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by sleeper
yeah i thought so. i was a bit warry of reading it because i thought it be all legal speak and whatever but, from what ive read so far, its pretty raucous and entertaining
§
no no, not at all
he purposefully made it VERY readable and highly entertaining
read it, man...i'm going to finish it tomorrow or later tonight
Nimrod's Son
12-20-2005, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by sleeper
i know all about how we should keep a decorum of politeness and not launch personal attacks and yadda yadda, but your are a tremendous fucking moron. there i said it. holy shit was that last post stupid.
i dont give a flying shit about anything else, you are hugely stupid. end of discussion.
i dont give a fuck. im going to say it. lets just drop the charade already. it was just way too much this time. way too much Awesome. Once again you have no rebuttal so you just turn to trolling. Seriously, keep it up. I'll enjoy the forthcoming politics board ban.
mpp
12-20-2005, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
I'll enjoy the forthcoming politics board ban.
:(
sleeper
12-20-2005, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by mpp
no no, not at all
he purposefully made it VERY readable and highly entertaining
read it, man...i'm going to finish it tomorrow or later tonight
i read a great article before about how judges are now consciously making an effort to make the literature they produce more readable so as to make it easier for the public to involve themselves and so on. the article had a kind of before-after set of examples with the before being completely unintelligible to anyone who hasnt passed the bar and the latter being, actually, really poetic and moving. its good that theyre doing this, although they should, of course, be careful not to get too carried away
sleeper
12-20-2005, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Awesome. Once again you have no rebuttal so you just turn to trolling. Seriously, keep it up. I'll enjoy the forthcoming politics board ban.
one, the idiocy in this right here is too dense for me to even think about touching. same with the last post. not only is a serious rebuttal not worth it and not even earned by you, but it would be totally in vain because you never live up to these glorious principles of mutual discussion and clean rebutting that you constantly lecture about yourself. what reason does anyone have to waste time with such nonsense, especially when you never do yourself?
and two, you can suck my fucking dick, pig. if youre going to ban me, and think you have the right, do it and drop this shit. you have no justification for it and you know it. i contribute as much as, if not more than, anyone on here and calling you stupid is not an offense that warrants banning, let alone one i am at all alone in being guilty of. im only saying because this is the second time ive heard you cry wolf. if youre going to do it, do it. if youre not, shut the fuck up. you just simply cannot do both.
sleeper
12-20-2005, 10:52 PM
really, this whole thing is exactly analogous to those times some unknown, 1-star poster makes some long, ignorant post that is fraught with all kinds of sweeping wrongs and idiocies and someone responds with like a single "wow, youre dumb" reply or soemthing. in those instances that 1-star poster invariably responds with a "so you have no rebuttal?" argument. its incredible
Nimrod's Son
12-20-2005, 11:15 PM
ok
Lie
12-21-2005, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by sleeper
its absolutely jaw-on-the-floor stunning to me it truly shocked me. shocked. i shook and had my mouth agape.
Pics?
mpp
12-21-2005, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by Lie
Pics?
I think he's gone.
Mike, you're kidding right?
TuralyonW3
12-21-2005, 03:47 AM
Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
ok
Nim, you can't put yourself in heated political debates with your denizens and then ban people for cussing you out. Just take the fire and move on man.
Corganist
12-21-2005, 04:49 AM
Originally posted by sleeper
no, this was about what constitutes "religion" and it was his decision, rightly so, that ID was it. religion -- as is often said -- in a cheap tuxedo. fact. theres very little to nitpick about here, its all very clear. crystal
you throw dust in peoples eyes with this nonsense about defining science, please stop. you dont have to know what something is to know what it isnt, corganist
I have no problem with what the judge did regarding identifying ID as religious doctrine in everything but name. That's what was called for, and he did that just fine. He ruled ID = religion, religion + public education = bad, therefore, no ID in public education. The good guys win, end of story.
But no, this judge went further and offered unneeded ruling on the issue of whether ID is science. That's where my problem is. Once he finds that ID is just disguised religion, it doesn't matter if its science or not. It can't be taught. But here we have a Federal judge taking it upon himself to go into a lengthy analysis of a theory in order to determine if it fits some vague legal definition of science that he more or less is making up as he goes along. I like seeing the ID folks get their comeuppance as much as the next guy, but the judge was just piling on here...and in doing so, set something of a disturbing precedent IMO.
Originally posted by mpp
the decision was a sound application of supreme court precedent; decisions such as Lemon, Edwards, and McLean are well-established and well-reasoned decisions on First Amendment doctrine.
It was a good application of precedent. But I beg to differ on one point. The Supreme Court's religion jurisprudence may be relatively well established, but I wouldn't go so far as to say much of it is well reasoned. If it were, it might get applied more consistently. (eg., no "If the Ten Commandments is inside the building its okay, if its outside its not" sorts of confusing and conflicting decisions.)
smashingjj
12-21-2005, 06:18 AM
Hey Nimrod, how many times have you cussed out Kristin? without adding the least to the topic? this is retarded.
mpp
12-21-2005, 12:12 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Corganist
It can't be taught. But here we have a Federal judge taking it upon himself to go into a lengthy analysis of a theory in order to determine if it fits some vague legal definition of science that he more or less is making up as he goes along.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess I haven't made it to that point in the opinion. All that stuff is just dicta anyway; it's not part of the holding of the case.
Oh, also about "teaching" teh stuff. That's a red herring, as pointed out in footnote in the case about 40 pages in. Whether or not they're teaching ID is irrelevant: it can have NO PLACE WHATSOEVER in the schools...even mentioning it tends to undermine or establish religion.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Corganist
(eg., no "If the Ten Commandments is inside the building its okay, if its outside its not" sorts of confusing and conflicting decisions.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ten Commandments jurisprudence is not what we're talking about here. That issue is MUCH more complicated than mentioning ID in public schools as an alternative to the "theory of evolution."
I mean, that shit IS tough because the Ten Commandments is a major part of the backbone of Western civilization whereas ID or creation science is a just a way to get the Christian God in the classroom and into kids' heads.
Though I see your point. The Ten Commandments stuff is part of the overall legal landscape of the USSC's First Amendment jurisprudence but it's only tangentially related to the issue at bar in Dover
Nimrod's Son
12-21-2005, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by smashingjj
Hey Nimrod, how many times have you cussed out Kristin? without adding the least to the topic? this is retarded.
Never on the politics board. The rules here have always been different. He knew that. He even admitted it in his post.
Illinois
12-21-2005, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Never on the politics board. The rules here have always been different. He knew that. He even admitted it in his post.
Fuck you, motherfucker!
Future Boy
12-21-2005, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Never on the politics board. The rules here have always been different. He knew that. He even admitted it in his post.
So, is it your postion that him cursing you out is trolling?
transluscent
12-21-2005, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by sleeper
i know all about how we should keep a decorum of politeness and not launch personal attacks and yadda yadda, but your are a tremendous fucking moron. there i said it. holy shit was that last post stupid.
i dont give a flying shit about anything else, you are hugely stupid. end of discussion.
i dont give a fuck. im going to say it. lets just drop the charade already. it was just way too much this time. way too much
plz define how this constitutes a troll, thx.
Nimrod's Son
12-22-2005, 02:47 AM
Originally posted by transluscent
plz define how this constitutes a troll, thx. Nah.
Nova
12-22-2005, 09:36 AM
Merry Christmas you fundamentalist evangelical fucks, shove this up your ass.
I'm a proud citizen of Pennsylvania this week. :)
Nothing/everything
12-22-2005, 12:29 PM
how about teaching the evolution theory in bible class then?
Seriously, teaching ID in biology classes is the most retarded thing ever. It would imply that about every nonsense theory has a right to be taught in classes of which science you'd pick to oppose.
If for instance, a major religion would state that the build-up of basic elements (protons, neutrons electrons whatnot) is completely different than generally accepted by scientists, it would then mean that this has to be also taught in physics or chemistry classes? Biology is a science, a broad theory basically, but a (socalled/defined) scientific theory. Don't mix it up with other theories. I don't mind teaching ID in, let's say, bible class or whatever though.
zbeast78
12-22-2005, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Nothing/everything
how about teaching the evolution theory in bible class then?
Seriously, teaching ID in biology classes is the most retarded thing ever. It would imply that about every nonsense theory has a right to be taught in classes of which science you'd pick to oppose.
If for instance, a major religion would state that the build-up of basic elements (protons, neutrons electrons whatnot) is completely different than generally accepted by scientists, it would then mean that this has to be also taught in physics or chemistry classes? Biology is a science, a broad theory basically, but a (socalled/defined) scientific theory. Don't mix it up with other theories. I don't mind teaching ID in, let's say, bible class or whatever though.
actually, my sister is a science teacher at a catholic school...& yes, they teach evolution. but of course, since its catholic school, they also mention Intelligent Design. My sister is a devout catholic who goes to church every single sunday & also believes in evolution 100 %.
I for one don't really like how these threats are going. They're way too mean spirited for my tastes. I really don't know whats wrong with letting people believe what they want to believe. Besides, its Christmas! (or hannukah! or ramadan! or kwanzaa! or Festivus for the restofus!
Nothing/everything
12-23-2005, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by zbeast78
actually, my sister is a science teacher at a catholic school...& yes, they teach evolution. but of course, since its catholic school, they also mention Intelligent Design. My sister is a devout catholic who goes to church every single sunday & also believes in evolution 100 %.
I for one don't really like how these threats are going. They're way too mean spirited for my tastes. I really don't know whats wrong with letting people believe what they want to believe. Besides, its Christmas! (or hannukah! or ramadan! or kwanzaa! or Festivus for the restofus!
I didn't mean to be meanspirited in any sense, i just think there should be a separation between different theories.
To switch the subject: i think education should be government funded and public. So no special schools with high fees, no catholic, protestant or muslim school. Everyone should get the same education. The income of your parents should for instance not give you a better or worse chance in education than other children.
Again, don't get me wrong, there should be classes in which major religions are discussed.