|
Author
|
Topic: Federal Judge Strikes Down Intelligent Design in Pennsylvania Schools
|
BORN AGAIN
unregistered
|
posted
The Constitution provides that "government shall make no religion the state religion" and allows "for religious freedom".
Therefore, not only is anything "Christian" constitutionally allowed, but also anything "buddhist" (if anyone wants to do it) or anything "islamic" (if anyone wants to do it), and so on.
It is therefore not about "forbidding" but about "allowing all" who want to present a case.
Because the USA is a majority Christian-heritage nation, we "Christians" will tend to offer "Christian" points of view, as the Constitution provides.
But it is NOT the Christians' duty to encourage other "religions" to offer their points of view. Each religion is on its own; may the best religion win over whomever it will win over.
God bless, ![[Cross]](graemlins/cross.gif) BORN AGAIN
IP: Logged | 
|
|
WhiteEagle
Advanced Member
Member # 3728
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glassnobody:
quote:
Originally posted by WhiteEagle:
Evolution theory is not an objective science. It's a subjective one. It can not be tested or proved or disproved. It can't be quantified, it can't be put under blind double studies, it can't be held up to hard empirical science.
WhiteEagle, I'm curious as to what kind of science education/background you have that would allow you to make such claims against the bulk of the scientific community and its body knowledge.
I studied biology. microbiology and physiology in nursing school.
I researched Evolution for abour 4 years reading and studying on that subject.
If you read articles on evolution it is all based on assumptions and theory. The so called evidences they give, do not go to the stretches of imagination they assign to them.
Evolution gives half of the story and then due to the bulk of scientists being bound to the theory they apply imagination to fill in the gaps.
Evolution will take hard scientific facts and add their theory to them.
True science is supposed to be based on facts and proven results.
Posts: 1392 | From: Maine | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Glassnobody
Advanced Member
Member # 2434
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by WhiteEagle:
Evolution theory is not an objective science. It's a subjective one. It can not be tested or proved or disproved. It can't be quantified, it can't be put under blind double studies, it can't be held up to hard empirical science.
WhiteEagle, I'm curious as to what kind of science education/background you have that would allow you to make such claims against the bulk of the scientific community and its body knowledge.
Posts: 65 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WhiteEagle
Advanced Member
Member # 3728
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by whitesands777:
quote:
Fair has nothing to do with. Scientific integrity has everything to do with it. Science is not fair, it is brutal. Either something measures up to scientific principles or it does not. ID/Creationism do not measure up to scientific prinicple and do not belong in the science curriculum of public schools.
This is where you are wrong sir...Because evolution THEORY can't stand in the face of "brutal" scientific examination...Matter of fact, this theory of evolution completely falls apart when it is tested against proven and OBSERVED scientific facts. Evolution THEORY requires the abandoment of the laws of physics and belief in evolution requires a type of faith (false faith) so the schools are bringing in a religion (false religion) in the classrooms.
Exactly! Most people on either side of Evolution/Creation debate do not know what they are talking about.
Chaos christian:
Evolution theory is not an objective science. It's a subjective one. It can not be tested or proved or disproved. It can't be quantified, it can't be put under blind double studies, it can't be held up to hard empirical science.
The believe in the theory of Evolution takes as much Faith if not more than to believe in Genesis and a Creator God.
All the so called evidences for Evolution come from pre conceived notions that Evolution is correct. Every evidence is explained per Darwin's
Theory and explained to leave out any God.
Creation Science is a science just as much if not more than Evolution. I'm not as familiar with ID, as I do beleive that is a vain attempt by people to get Creation taught in the classroom, but it's not a honest way to get it there.
If they could allow just biological facts to be taught without Evolutionary theory, that would be the way to really teach science without any preconceived notions.
Biological facts and genetics do not prove Evolution. Carbon 14 does not prove Evolution, neither does any radiometric measuring of rocks.
In fact Carbon 14 which tests organic or living things is only considered reliable to 5000 years and that is more in line with Genesis.
Posts: 1392 | From: Maine | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WhiteEagle
Advanced Member
Member # 3728
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by trafield:
quote:
That is all.....
That's okay. Eat more beans. There will be more...
![[clap2]](graemlins/clap2.gif)
Posts: 1392 | From: Maine | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
whitesands777
Advanced Member
Member # 3424
|
posted
quote:
Fair has nothing to do with. Scientific integrity has everything to do with it. Science is not fair, it is brutal. Either something measures up to scientific principles or it does not. ID/Creationism do not measure up to scientific prinicple and do not belong in the science curriculum of public schools.
This is where you are wrong sir...Because evolution THEORY can't stand in the face of "brutal" scientific examination...Matter of fact, this theory of evolution completely falls apart when it is tested against proven and OBSERVED scientific facts. Evolution THEORY requires the abandoment of the laws of physics and belief in evolution requires a type of faith (false faith) so the schools are bringing in a religion (false religion) in the classrooms.
Posts: 501 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
trafield
Advanced Member
Member # 5358
|
posted
quote:
That is all.....
That's okay. Eat more beans. There will be more...
Posts: 225 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
trafield
Advanced Member
Member # 5358
|
posted
A fart in the wind?
Wasn't that a song?
Oh yeah, that was 'Dust in the Wind.' ![[pound]](graemlins/pound.gif)
A fart in the wind?
Isn't that phrase redundant?
Posts: 225 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by trafield:
quote:
Please, all I did was correct you on the use of my screenname. I don't care that you don't care about its meaning. Fine by me. But to continue to use it incorrectly is a sign of disrespect and a willingness to be rude.
I accept that we can disagree on this issue. I do not accept that because you think that I am on the wrong side of it is a valid excuse for you to be rude.
I see, because you feel offended then I must be acting rude. Even though I explained that I am abbreviating your name.
Sorry, but I decidecided that it offends me to use the word 'Chaos' witht he word 'Christian' so I will continue to call you Chaos. I am not meaning to be rude, and hope you understand.
I am but a sillyness.
A fart in the wind.
Jas.4
1. [14] Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
trafield
Advanced Member
Member # 5358
|
posted
quote:
Do you not care that these Christian leaders lied?
That is for God to judge.
But for a judge to act like he is offended about either party lying in a lawsuit is laughable!
Posts: 225 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
trafield
Advanced Member
Member # 5358
|
posted
quote:
Please, all I did was correct you on the use of my screenname. I don't care that you don't care about its meaning. Fine by me. But to continue to use it incorrectly is a sign of disrespect and a willingness to be rude.
I accept that we can disagree on this issue. I do not accept that because you think that I am on the wrong side of it is a valid excuse for you to be rude.
I see, because you feel offended then I must be acting rude. Even though I explained that I am abbreviating your name.
Sorry, but I decidecided that it offends me to use the word 'Chaos' witht he word 'Christian' so I will continue to call you Chaos. I am not meaning to be rude, and hope you understand.
Posts: 225 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
trafield wrote:
quote:
But had the judge ruled in favor of the defendants it would have at least been a victory for reason and common sense.
Do you not care that these Christian leaders lied?
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
trafield:
If I introduce myself to you as Robert, and you call me Bob, I can understand the mistake and correct by telling you I prefer to be called Robert. If you continue to call me Bob after that, I either begin to wonder about your hearing or your intent.
Please, all I did was correct you on the use of my screenname. I don't care that you don't care about its meaning. Fine by me. But to continue to use it incorrectly is a sign of disrespect and a willingness to be rude.
I accept that we can disagree on this issue. I do not accept that because you think that I am on the wrong side of it is a valid excuse for you to be rude.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
trafield
Advanced Member
Member # 5358
|
posted
quote:
I don't want this issue to hijack the thread, but Corinthians is a lovely and powerful text. Too bad it has no relevance in terms of discerning the meaning behind my screenname. If you really must know, PM me.
Chaos,
No offense, but I could care less. You are the one who brought up your name.
Posts: 225 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
trafield
Advanced Member
Member # 5358
|
posted
quote:
Let's say Judge Jones had ruled in favor of the defendents. Would that really be a great victory for Christianity?
The victory was won some 2000 year ago when Christ bore the sins of man and defeated death on a cross.
But had the judge ruled in favor of the defendants it would have at least been a victory for reason and common sense. ![[cool_shades]](graemlins/cool_shades.gif)
Posts: 225 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
trafield:
quote:
Chaos,
Talk about being off point!
This nonsense of evolution offends Chrisitans because it takes an opposing view that denies a creator in the creation of man. It denies that man was created for the purposes of God and that we are just the happenstance of years of evolving from apes, amoebas, or whatever.
But beyond even that, it is offensive because these legal rulings treat the theory as if it was a proven fact. The fact is, in thier pride many judges, scholors and scientists just cannot bring themselves to admit that they do not have all the answers.
We agree it is a matter of faith...something science and most Supreme Court Judges cannot comprehend.
This question may be off topic, but do feel that all the crosses in Arlington National Cemetary should be removed?
Evolution theory is not nonsense, and it does not offend ALL Christians. It must offend some Christians, you certainly seem to be put off by it. I know and know of many Christians who accept evolutionary theory, but this isn't a popularity contest.
Evolutionary science does not deny a creator in the creation of man. More specifically, evolution says nothing about the origins of life. Can it not be that the process of evolution is HOW God created life on Earth?
Also, evolutionary theory is more purpose driven than you give it credit for. The element of random chance has been hyped up beyond proportion.
The landscape of evolutionary theory is very broad. Some elements of it are indeed fact, demonstrated beyond all doubt. Other elements are not fact, but still solidly the best scientific theories we have for this particular topic.
The Dover School Boards case really wasn't about evolution or ID, if you look at if carefully. It was about whether or not agents of the state could introduce a particular practice into the science curriculum of a public school. The plaintiffs contended that this practice was not science and was in fact evangelism of a particular religious belief and a violation of their 1st Amendment rights. The defendents denied this charge and in the process of their defence lied about both the nature of ID and their intentions. That was the central issue. That the matter involved another ongoing debate (ID/creationism vs evolution) only added to the complexity, but it did not change in any fundemental way the plaintiffs original charge.
Look at it the other way. Let's say Judge Jones had ruled in favor of the defendents. Would that really be a great victory for Christianity? The fact that the defendents lied still remains, and the message sent would be: Christians can lie and that's ok.
The defendents were dishonest seven ways to Sunday, and the Judge did not err in calling them out on it.
With regard to your final question, you are correct, it is off topic and I will not respond to it as it is totally irrelevant to this discussion. If you really want to explore that issue, I recommend that you start a new thread.
trafield also wrote:
quote:
Chaos-Christian,
Concerning your name, I was just abbreviating. But since we are on the subject...
1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace.
2 Corinthians 6:14
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?
1. Its chaoschristian, no hyphen.
2. I don't want this issue to hijack the thread, but Corinthians is a lovely and powerful text. Too bad it has no relevance in terms of discerning the meaning behind my screenname. If you really must know, PM me.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
trafield
Advanced Member
Member # 5358
|
posted
Chaos-Christian,
Concerning your name, I was just abbreviating. But since we are on the subject...
1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace.
2 Corinthians 6:14
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?
Posts: 225 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
trafield
Advanced Member
Member # 5358
|
posted
quote:
I'm not saying don't be greived or upset,
Yes that is exactly what you said.
Now you want to change it to 'discouraged'...fine.
I am not discouraged...again, I am grieved in my Spirit. I have hope for I know what the end-result of all this will be, but am grieved by those who cannot see the Truth. I am passionate.
Posts: 225 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
trafield
Advanced Member
Member # 5358
|
posted
Chaos,
Talk about being off point!
This nonsense of evolution offends Chrisitans because it takes an opposing view that denies a creator in the creation of man. It denies that man was created for the purposes of God and that we are just the happenstance of years of evolving from apes, amoebas, or whatever.
But beyond even that, it is offensive because these legal rulings treat the theory as if it was a proven fact. The fact is, in thier pride many judges, scholors and scientists just cannot bring themselves to admit that they do not have all the answers.
We agree it is a matter of faith...something science and most Supreme Court Judges cannot comprehend.
This question may be off topic, but do feel that all the crosses in Arlington National Cemetary should be removed?
Posts: 225 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
trafield
Advanced Member
Member # 5358
|
posted
Wparr,
I know we can expect these things to happen, but can I tell my Spirit to not be grieved at what grieves God?
It is all a part of the passion, my friend. The church could use a little more of it, in my opinion.
We are not told to be always happy, rather we are told "in your anger, do not sin." It is this righteous anger and grieving of the Spirit that will lead to fasting and prayer.
Read Daniel 9:1-19. Do you think Daniel was upset? He cetainly knew what was coming by studying Jeramiah the prophet.
Posts: 225 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
trafield:
quote:
Chaos,
Teaching Intelligent Design does not teach the Bible. The proponents to this were wanting a four paragrph statement inserted in biology books stating that there is another theory...one that is also called creationism...that everything started by a diety. How is this teching the Bible or religion? Is it fair to teach a theory as fact while not letting another be mentioned? Of course not!
As has been the case in the recent years, it seems those with an anti-christian agenda only care about protecting the offenses against any faith other than Christians.
A far as the science goes...this really shows ignorance on the judge's part. For to believe that everything evolved, you have to believe that something can come out of nothing. This is a scientific impossibility! For in evolution, you must go back to where there was eventually nothing...and how did that first something form out of nothing?
Something cannot even be CREATED unless there was first something there to create it. And therefore, that something has to be something that was always present, that was never created, a something that we know to be THE CREATOR, the Lord God Almighty.
So to say there is no scientific evidence to support Intelligent Design shows the folly of this judge and exposes his own anti-christian agenda.
1. This is not relevant to the topic, but it is something that bothers me. My screen name is chaoschristian. Not Chaos. There is a meaning behind the choice for my screenname and if you think it through it is open to discovery. I know you didn't mean anything by it, and we'll let it go at that.
2. You are correct. ID does not teach the Bible, on its surface. ID bends over backwards in its rationalizations as to why it is not creationism. This is important - the defendents denied ID is/was creationism in this case. They lied. Even you admit it you post by equating ID to creationism. The defendents were in effect wearing the Emperor's robes when it came to naivity. Everyone around them could see they were pushing creationism, but they steadfastly denied it. Creationism does teach that the origins of life and the development of species over time is accounted for in the Book of Genesis. There are certainly schools of creationist thought that seek to minimize this connection, but at its core Creationism is about saying the Genesis account is equivalent to, if not better than, science.
And quite frankly if you are teaching that the origins of life are solely attributable to a diety, then you are teaching religion.
Fair has nothing to do with. Scientific integrity has everything to do with it. Science is not fair, it is brutal. Either something measures up to scientific principles or it does not. ID/Creationism do not measure up to scientific prinicple and do not belong in the science curriculum of public schools.
3. Look at wparr's post. He makes a really important point. How does this offend Christianity? How does this effect your faith? Or your ability to share your faith with others?
4. Actually you hold a mistaken concept about the theory of evolution. Evolution does not concern itself with the origins of life. That is reserved for the theory of abiogenisis. The theory of evolution concerns itself with, among other things, how a species changes over time in reaction to differing environmental stimuli. Judge Jones' analyis of this is both accurate and concise. He did not err.
5. You are not going to like reading this, but, God is not scientific evidence. Within the realm of science and logic, God (or any diety or godhead for that matter) is a tautology - a logical fallacy for which there is not disproof. Any scientific theory or logical argument that bases itself on a tautology is fallacious and does not meet scientific scrutiny.
I think it is very important that you realize how this case was framed. The defendents enacted a school policy that imposed the concept of ID in the science classroom. The defendents were challenged for their actions based of the 1st Amendment. Basically the plaintifss were saying that the defendents were using state resources to establish religion in a public school classroom. The defendents subsequently lied about their intent and the nature of ID during the trial, and failed to meet any burden of proof that would support their claims. Judge Jones ruled that the right of the plaintiffs to be free from state sanctioned religion was violated by the defendents. I think it is a far stretch to say that this man has an anti-Christian agenda.
Look, you obviously have faith in God and belief that He created, well, everything. So do I. I also belief that God provided us with the ability to think abstractly and to use science as a means to discover His creation. Science helps us to understand God's wonders and marvel at the complexity of creation. It also allows us to be co-creators in this on-going miracle. Science and most certainly the theory of evolution do not necessarily deny the existance of God. Faith and science can be held together.
I hope that you can understand this, and I hope that you can begin to see why this ruling is in fact a good thing for Christians.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
"Teaching our children about the Bible, its stories, its values, and most importantly, its Message, is the responsibilitiy of parents, family and churches, not of public schools. "
If the public schools are made up of the public.
And as you say "Teaching our children about the Bible, its stories, its values, and most importantly, its Message, is the responsibilitiy of parents"
Then you are saying that the public's responsibility ends at the States Indoctronation semonars of STATE run schools?
The Moral Mesage ends at the door of the indoctronation centers for the State?
I thinki not.
I say this is a ick/white spot upon the Republic to say it does.
It is a trusted trust that we trust our educatours to FOLLOW up on that which the Republic has set forward in our homes by our very faith.
There is nothing Constitutionally wrong with this.
''Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.''
~
On January 14, 1969, Red Skelton touched the hearts of millions of Americans with his "Pledge Of Allegiance", in which he explained the meaning of each and every word. Red Skelton's "Pledge" was twice read into the Congressional Record of the United States and received numerous awards.
RED SKELTON: "I remember this one teacher. To me, he was the greatest teacher, a real sage of my time. He had such wisdom. We were all reciting the Pledge Of Allegiance and he walked over. Mr. Lasswell was his name... He said": "I've been listening to you boys and girls recite the Pledge Of Allegiance all semester and it seems as though it is becoming monotonous to you. If I may, may I recite it and try to explain to you the meaning of each word:
I
Me; an individual; a committee of one.
Pledge
Dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self-pity.
Allegiance
My love and my devotion.
To the Flag
Our standard; Old Glory ; a symbol of Freedom; wherever she waves there is respect, because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts, Freedom is everybody's job.
of the United
That means that we have all come together.
States
Individual communities that have united into forty-eight great states. Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose. All divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and that is love for country.
And to the Republic
Republic -- a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people; and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.
For which it stands
One Nation
One Nation -- meaning, so blessed by God.
Indivisible
Incapable of being divided.
take the pledge mug - order from cafepress.com
Order the mug, T-shirt or mouse pad
With Liberty
Which is Freedom; the right of power to live one's own life, without threats, fear, or some sort of retaliation.
And Justice
The principle, or quality, of dealing fairly with others.
For All
For All -- which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine. And now, boys and girls, let me hear you recite the Pledge of Allegiance:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance: Under God. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer, and that would be eliminated from schools, too?"
Editor's note: sadly, Red Skelton was prescient - the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (the most overturned court in the United States of America) has done exactly that -- click here for more information.
from http://www.clown-ministry.com/History/red-skelton-pledge.html
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
trafield
Advanced Member
Member # 5358
|
posted
Chaos,
Teaching Intelligent Design does not teach the Bible. The proponents to this were wanting a four paragrph statement inserted in biology books stating that there is another theory...one that is also called creationism...that everything started by a diety. How is this teching the Bible or religion? Is it fair to teach a theory as fact while not letting another be mentioned? Of course not!
As has been the case in the recent years, it seems those with an anti-christian agenda only care about protecting the offenses against any faith other than Christians.
A far as the science goes...this really shows ignorance on the judge's part. For to believe that everything evolved, you have to believe that something can come out of nothing. This is a scientific impossibility! For in evolution, you must go back to where there was eventually nothing...and how did that first something form out of nothing?
Something cannot even be CREATED unless there was first something there to create it. And therefore, that something has to be something that was always present, that was never created, a something that we know to be THE CREATOR, the Lord God Almighty.
So to say there is no scientific evidence to support Intelligent Design shows the folly of this judge and exposes his own anti-christian agenda.
Romans 1:18-25
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godliness and wickedness of men who surpress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.
Posts: 225 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
CNN: Dover, PA Court Ruling
OK, bear with me. This is a GOOD thing for Christians. Judge Jones clearly articulates why ID is not science and does not belong in a science curriculum.
Teaching our children about the Bible, its stories, its values, and most importantly, its Message, is the responsibilitiy of parents, family and churches, not of public schools.
My hope is the Christians who support ID will now see the light and move on to more important things. I hope that they will see the difference between faith and science, and why both are necessary and also not necessarily in conflict. I hope they see the foolishness in continuing to make claims that ID is science when it is not. I hope that they will see that there are more important issues to deal with, and that putting effort into the ID agenda is a waste.
trafield wrote:
quote:
THE ATTACK ON CHRISTIANITY CONTINUES! ACCORDING TO THIS JUDGE, IT IS RIGHT TO TEACH EVOLUTION, WHILE THERE IS NO 'SCIENTIFIC BASIS' FOR TEACHING 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN.' HE GOES SO FAR IN HIS RULING TO ACCUSE THOSE (CHRISTIANS) WHO ARE TRYING TO PUSH THE TEACHING OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN OF HAVING A CHRISTIAN AGENDA! YOU THINK? WHAT ABOUT THE PAGEN, ANTI-CHRISTIAN AGENDA YOU HAVE, JUDGE?
I want to point out one thing that is very important, and I hope that you will see why it makes a difference. The defendants in this case, the then members of the Dover School Board and the folks who supported them, claimed and still claim that ID was NOT tied to Creationism and specically NOT tied to Christianity. Judge Jones is simply calling them out for their very obvious lie. And they did lie, about the nature of ID and about their intentions. As good as their intentions may have been, they were dishonest in their approach.
So, I think it is over the top to accuse Judge Jones of having a pagan, anti-Christian agenda as you state. He wasn't accusing Christians of having a Christian agenda, he clearly revealed the religious motivations of people who were publicly stating that they did not have religious motivations for their behaviour.
And although it doesn't matter, and shouldn't matter, I want to point out that Judge Jones was appointed to the bench by a Republican, is a Republican and a church going Christian as well.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
trafield
Advanced Member
Member # 5358
|
posted
THE ATTACK ON CHRISTIANITY CONTINUES! ACCORDING TO THIS JUDGE, IT IS RIGHT TO TEACH EVOLUTION, WHILE THERE IS NO 'SCIENTIFIC BASIS' FOR TEACHING 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN.' HE GOES SO FAR IN HIS RULING TO ACCUSE THOSE (CHRISTIANS) WHO ARE TRYING TO PUSH THE TEACHING OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN OF HAVING A CHRISTIAN AGENDA! YOU THINK? WHAT ABOUT THE PAGEN, ANTI-CHRISTIAN AGENDA YOU HAVE, JUDGE?
Dear Lord forgive us, for we are a people that is turning ever farther from you! Even so, come Lord Jesus!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179256,00.html
Federal Judge Strikes Down Intelligent Design in Pennsylvania Schools
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
By Jane Roh
Teaching "intelligent design" to high school biology students violates laws prohibiting the endorsement of religion in public schools, a federal judge ruled Tuesday. The ruling in Pennsylvania is a major defeat for proponents of the controversial alternative theory about the origins of life.
"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID [intelligent design] is nothing less than the progeny of creationism," wrote U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III.
He said the Dover Area School District's mandatory policy of reading a statement on intelligent design before teaching the theory of evolution to ninth-grade biology students violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
"I'm very proud of the plaintiffs for standing up and doing what they did," said newly elected school board member Lawrence Gurreri of the parents who sued the school. "Now we can get this school back to where it's supposed to be."
"I think it's a very sad day," said David Napierskie, a former school board member who supports ID.
Adherents of intelligent design are vastly outnumbered within the scientific community, although support for the theory is growing, particularly among evangelical Christians. The theory presupposes an "intelligent creator" and seeks to explain the supposed randomness of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
The Dover Area School Board enacted the policy of exposing students to ID in October 2004, and is believed to have been the first in the nation to do so. While the board argued that the intelligent designer needn't be God — some have said it could be a space alien — Judge Jones said such arguments barely disguised the board's true motives.
"No serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of [ID], including defendants' expert witnesses," Jones wrote. He later noted, "Not one defense expert was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by ID could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition."
Defenders of the policy argued the school board was merely supplementing the teaching of evolution with an alternative theory that might better explain the origins of life.
"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered," read the Dover policy statement. "The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations."
But, as Jones explained in detail, even ID proponents acknowledge that the "designer" in question is a supernatural force. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that public schools may not endorse religion of any kind.
What made ID particularly suspect, Jones wrote, was the origin of the theory itself. ID came about after 1987, when the Supreme Court ruled that public schools may not teach "creation science," or creationism. Intelligent design, Jones said, was a cynical attempt by religious groups to sneak theology into the public schools.
"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," Jones wrote.
"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."
He continued: "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."
School boards across the country had awaited Tuesday's decision with keen interest. Many may now be reluctant to test the waters themselves by introducing ID into biology classes.
Prior to Tuesday's ruling, the issue had stoked emotions within the divided Dover community, and eight school board members were turned out in a Nov. 8 election. They were replaced by opponents of the policy, who said they would not appeal the decision.
Bernadette Reinking, the board's new president, said intelligent design would probably be discussed in an elective social studies class after consultation with an attorney.
Gurreri, also one of the new board members elected in November, told FOXNews.com that all the media attention on the community of 20,000 was embarrassing and that tensions linger among residents. The parent of a Dover graduate and self-described churchgoer, he added that he was "very hopeful" residents would move past the ID battle and that the community's interest in the school system would remain as high as it's been in the past year.
Napierskie, the former school board member, said the judge overstepped his boundaries.
"[Jones] should have separated the issues and disagreed with the school board decision, but not rule on ID itself. Intelligent design still needs to be debated and discussed," Napierskie told FOX News.
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which represented the school district and describes its mission as defending the religious freedom of Christians, said: "What this really looks like is an ad hominem attack on scientists who happen to believe in God."
Even if the school board decides to appeal and the case reaches the Supreme Court, it is unclear whether the justices would decide to hear it, as the precedent on religion in schools has remained relatively fixed for the past half-century.
In the landmark Scopes Trial in 1925, a lower court ruled against a teacher who sought to teach evolution. But in 1968 the Supreme Court struck down an prohibition against teaching evolution in Arkansas. Twenty years later, a court decision effectively banned the teaching of creationism in all public schools.
Religious organizations have since tried several times to test the nationwide ban by arguing that there is no creationism in intelligent design. During the Dover trial, a school board member defended a statement he made in an interview, saying he "misspoke" when he advocated balancing evolution with creationism.
The defense also called several scientists as witnesses, rather than theologians. In a brief filed with the court, attorneys insisted that ID is a science, and "is not based on any religious authority or tenet of religious faith, nor does it seek to demonstrate the veracity of any religious authority or tenet of religious faith."
Other school boards across the country have also sought to diminish the prominence of evolutionary theory in their biology classrooms.
Earlier this month, a federal appeals court in Georgia heard arguments over evolution disclaimer stickers placed in a biology textbooks. A federal judge in January had ordered Cobb County school officials to immediately remove the stickers, which called evolution a theory, not a fact.
In November, state education officials in Kansas adopted new classroom science standards that call the theory of evolution into question.
Kansas Board of Education Chairman Steve Abrams, who supported that state's new standards, said the circumstances in Kansas and Pennsylvania are much different, given that the Dover board mandated intelligent design in its curriculum.
"We're not doing that," he said. "It's about teaching good critical thinking skills."
Posts: 225 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
