Author
|
Topic: ID = Religion. For once, science takes game, set and match. (Read 1645 times) |
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
 
|
 |
ID = Religion. For once, science takes game, set and match.
« on: 2005-12-29 08:33:03 » |
 |
US judge bans intelligent design from science lessons
· Victory for parents on teaching of evolution
· Theory ruled to be religion by the back door
Source: The Guardian
Authors: Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Dated: 2005-12-21
Refer Also: http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=114 (While noting that Pew is a polling organization aligned with the conservative christian right wing).
A courtroom battle seen as a test case for the teaching of science in America ended in a decisive victory for evolution yesterday when a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled that it was unconstitutional to teach "intelligent design" in biology class.
In a 139-page decision that was scathing about the area school district and dismissive of the science of "intelligent design", US district judge John Jones III ruled that the school district of Dover, Pennsylvania, had violated the constitution by ordering teachers to read a statement which challenged Darwin's theory of evolution.
Yesterday's verdict concludes a trial that was seen as the most important legal review of science and religion since the 1920s. It arrives at a time when the teaching of evolution is under attack in school districts from Georgia to Kansas and when the school district in Dover was seen as the cutting edge of a new effort by the religious right to inject its views into America's state school system.
Judge Jones's verdict was ambitious in scope, dealing not only with the actions of the Dover school district but also with the very notion of "intelligent design", an idea which surfaced 15 years ago following the failure of earlier efforts to introduce traditional biblical creationism in public schools.
Anticipating that his decision would come under attack from the religious right, the judge, who was appointed by President George Bush, was careful to state that he was not an activist judge, but dealing with proceedings provoked by the actions of the school district. The judge wrote that "intelligent design" was a religious notion that advances Christianity, and so was in violation of constitutional provisions against the establishment of religion.
"The evidence at trial demonstrates that 'intelligent design' is nothing less than the progeny of creationism," Judge Jones wrote.
He accused members of the school board of concealing the real purpose behind their insistence on introducing a passage deriding evolution to high school students. "We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to pretext for the board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom," Judge Jones wrote.
The verdict was immediately hailed as a "complete victory" by the American Civil Liberties Union. "This will make the teaching of science a lot easier," said Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Centre for Science Education.
The roots of yesterday's landmark verdict go back to October last year, when the school district in Dover, Pennsylvania, ordered high school teachers to read a statement to students which cast doubt on evolution as a theory. "Gaps in the theory exist for which there is not evidence," the statement said.
Eleven parents filed a suit, resulting in a six-week trial in which Judge Jones led an exhaustive examination of the events in Dover as well as the intellectual underpinnings of the "intelligent design" movement, which has led the incursions into classrooms in Dover and elsewhere.
Unlike in Dover, where the judge said the religious inclinations of the school board members were transparent, the leaders of the Intelligent Design movement have been careful to avoid direct reference to God but argued that the universe was too complex to have come into being without the guiding hand of a creator.
The judge did not accept that yesterday. "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere relabelling of creationism, and not a scientific theory," he wrote.
Proponents of intelligent design have also shied from demanding an outright ban on evolution in the classroom, but have called instead for teaching about the "controversy" surrounding Darwin.
The approach - or stealth creationism as its critics called it - was endorsed by President Bush, who told reporters last August that he favoured open debate in the classroom.
But in his verdict yesterday, Judge Jones was categorical that "intelligent design" was not science, and that its attacks on evolution should not be admitted into the classroom. "This tactic is at best disingenuous and at worst a canard. The goal of the [movement] is not to encourage critical thought but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID."
Backstory
In October 2004, the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, ordered teachers to read a statement to ninth grade biology students (14-year-olds) describing evolution as a theory still in the process of being tested and for which there were "gaps" in evidence. Eleven parents sued, with support from the American Civil Liberties Union. The dispute was seen as a test case for efforts by supporters of a new version of creationism, intelligent design, to overturn the constitutional principle of a separation between church and state. US courts since the 1960s have banned the teaching of creationism in state schools. The federal judge yesterday said state schools can not teach intelligent design in science classes, and that the Dover school board had violated the constitution.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Fox
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 122
Reputation: 8.01
Rate Fox
Never underestimate the odds.
|
|
Re:ID = Religion. For once, science takes game, set and match.
« Reply #1 on: 2006-08-29 16:45:59 » |
|
Ah, greetings Hermit.
An interesting post here I just discovered and which raised some interesting thoughts.
Although I can agree with what has been ruled within the article, I somehow doubt that ardent I.D supporters or creationists will suddenly agree that those things should not be taught in schools simply becasue a judge says its unconstitutional.
Quote from: Hermit on 2005-12-29 08:33:03
Just curious here (from lack of knolwedge), but what makes you think that the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life (one of the Pew Charitable Trusts) is a "conservative christian" organization?
Regards,
Fox
|
I've never expected a miracle. I will get things done myself. - Gatsu
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:ID = Religion. For once, science takes game, set and match.
« Reply #2 on: 2006-08-30 03:16:56 » |
|
Fox asked:
Quote from: White Fox on 2006-08-29 16:45:59 | Just curious here (from lack of knolwedge), but what makes you think that the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life (one of the Pew Charitable Trusts) is a "conservative christian" organization? |
Hermit Responds:
Salutations Fox,
In short, "Research, analysis and experience."
First a few pointers. The seven funds which comprised the recently amalgamated Pew Charitable Trusts were established by the children of the founder of the Sun Oil Company. The entire family is associated with the Quakers, who while not "classical Christians" regard the alleged teachings of Christ as their most significant influence. Like most Quakers, the family was deeply, but privately, religious and like most wealthy people, particularly those who establish foundations, deeply conservative. This is usually strongly suggestive of a Republican (right-wing) bent and the founders of the Pew Charitable Trusts were no exception. They were ardent and vociferous Republicans, probably in part because, unlike most religions, the Quakers combine vehement anti-war sentiment with a non-racist perspective. Given their experience with Democrat sponsored bureaucracy, observation of the Democratic party's historically strong racist stance, coupled with the Democrat's tendency to embroil the country in wars, the Pew family supported the Republicans, and indeed, part of the trust's agenda is "to acquaint the American people... [with] the evils of bureaucracy... [and] the values of free speech." This may have changed as the American parties switched platforms without notifying their supporters, but if they have, the news has not reached me.
What I do know is that organizations tend to appoint people who hold opinions not too dissimilar from their founders, and so tend to be self perpetuating. Which means that the Pew Trusts have probably appointed a large majority of their staff from amongst the ranks of conservative right-wing Christians, but given their intelligent religion-as-a-private-matter, and strong anti-war perspective, almost certainly few if any Texas Baptists, or indeed any other kind of Baptist.
Much more significant than this "argument from history", everyone has a perspective from which they must communicate if they are to communicate at all. Careful analysis of what seems important to people, which can often be discerned from the classes of things they ask questions about, and even more often, from the kinds of interpretations they don't ask questions about, allows the intelligent observer many opportunities to develop an opinion on the perspective of any author over time. When the authors are as prolific as the Pew group has been, this is not particularly challenging.
In my opinion, the general tenor of Pew group questions points to a "conservative christian right-wing" perspective (recognizing that these labels have, to a great extent become less meaningful in the current environment). As is not totally unexpected, their conclusions often tend to favor their own outlook. This is always expected, due to the fact that opinion-researchers, no matter how much they might think that they bend in search of honesty, often fail to allow for alternate reasoning which might lead to answers they themselves could not anticipate when drawing up questionnaires. The result is that people with different perspectives tend to find themselves 'coerced' into answering unexpectedly to questions which combine issues they might prefer split, or separated where they might prefer them combined. Speaking personally, I find this happens to me almost every time I attempt to complete a Pew poll.
Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
Logged
