Even though this is a flame thread, I'm not mad about this. In fact, I'm amused!

This is always hilarious, because creationism invariably gets crushed when examined by a court that isn't stacked with creationists. This just goes to show you that you can only fool stupid people by saying stupid things. It also goes to show how depressingly ignorant the average American is.

quote:

---

Sean put down Tada! magazine long enough to type:
Washington Post refuses to serve up the article.

---

quote:

---

New evolution spat in U.S. schools goes to court

By Jon Hurdle
Reuters
Friday, September 23, 2005; 1:05 PM

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A new battle over teaching about man's origins in U.S. schools goes to court for the first time next week, pitting Christian conservatives against educators and scientists in a trial viewed as the biggest test of the issue since the late 1980s.

Eleven parents of students at a Pennsylvania high school are suing over the school district's decision to include "intelligent design" -- an alternative to evolution that involves a God-like creator -- in the curriculum of ninth-grade biology classes.

The parents and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) say the policy of the Dover Area School District in south-central Pennsylvania violates the constitutional separation of church and state, which forbids teaching religion in public schools.

They also argue that intelligent design is unscientific and has no place in a science curriculum.

Intelligent design holds that nature is so complex it must have been the work of an God-like creator rather than the result of natural selection, as argued by Charles Darwin in his 1859 Theory of Evolution.

The school board says there are "gaps" in evolution, which it emphasizes is a theory rather than established fact, and that students have a right to consider other views on the origins of life. In their camp is President George W. Bush, who has said schools should teach evolution and intelligent design.

The Dover schools board says it does not teach intelligent design but simply makes students aware of its existence as an alternative to evolution. It denies intelligent design is "religion in disguise" and says it is a scientific theory.

The board is being represented by The Thomas More Law Center, a Michigan-based nonprofit which says it uses litigation to promote "the religious freedom of Christians and time-honored family values."

The center did not return phone calls seeking comment.

The trial begins on Monday in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and is expected to last about five weeks.

"ORWELLIAN" EFFORTS

Dr. John West of the Discovery Institute, which sponsors research on intelligent design, said the case displayed the ACLU's "Orwellian" effort to stifle scientific discourse and objected to the issue being decided in court.

"It's a disturbing prospect that the outcome of this lawsuit could be that the court will try to tell scientists what is legitimate scientific inquiry and what is not," West said. "That is a flagrant assault on free speech."

Opponents including the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Association of Biology Teachers say intelligent design is an attempt by the Christian right to teach creationism -- the belief that God created the world -- into public schools under the guise of a theory that does not explicitly mention God. The Supreme Court banned the teaching of creationism in public schools in a 1987 ruling.

"Intelligent design is ultimately a science stopper," said Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Council for Science Education, a pro-evolution group backing the Dover parents.

"It's a political and religious movement that's trying to insinuate itself into the public schools," she said.

But the American public appears to back the school district.

At least 31 states are taking steps to teach alternatives to evolution. A CBS poll last November found 65 percent of Americans favor teaching creationism as well as evolution while 37 percent want creationism taught instead of evolution.

Fifty-five percent of Americans believe God created humans in their present form, the poll found.

Earlier this month a top Roman Catholic cardinal critical of evolution branded scientific opponents of intelligent design intolerant and said there need not be a conflict between Darwin's and Christian views of life's origins.

Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, a top Church doctrinal expert and close associate of Pope Benedict, said Darwin's theory did not clash with a belief in God so long as scientists did not assert that pure chance accounted for everything from "the Big Bang to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony."

---

The sad thing is, I don't see why you can't believe in evolution and still be religious. Charles Darwin, the theory's founder, had no trouble believing in both.

quote:

---

Mr. Crabs's account was hax0red to write:
The sad thing is, I don't see why you can't believe in evolution and still be religious. Charles Darwin, the theory's founder, had no trouble believing in both.

---

Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. I, and the rest of my church, are proof.

quote:

---

Mr. Crabs had this to say about Matthew Broderick:

The sad thing is, I don't see why you can't believe in evolution and still be religious. Charles Darwin, the theory's founder, had no trouble believing in both.

---

The last documentary I saw on Darwin seemed to indicate that he had a lot of problems with the Christian faith and religion itself and that his wife was really troubled by that

Kegwen fucked around with this message on 09-24-2005 at 11:42 PM.

quote:

---

Earlier this month a top Roman Catholic cardinal critical of evolution branded scientific opponents of intelligent design intolerant and said there need not be a conflict between Darwin's and Christian views of life's origins.

Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, a top Church doctrinal expert and close associate of Pope Benedict, said Darwin's theory did not clash with a belief in God so long as scientists did not assert that pure chance accounted for everything from "the Big Bang to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony."

---

But scientists aren't asserting that, they're only asserting that pure chance most likely accounts for everything from "the Big Bang to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony."

quote:

---

Why do ya build me up, Demos-cup baby just to let me down, and mess me around?
The biggest flaw with ID is that their biggest argument for IT'S legitimacy is that evolution hasn't been "proven" 100%. But anyone with a modicum of logic will say that "Just because theory A is still being developed doesn't make theory B a legitimate theory."

---

Even more than that, there's the misconception about what a "theory" is in science, as opposed to its everyday use. A theory in science is a model for understanding, not just a hypothesis.

Also:

quote:

---

Earlier this month a top Roman Catholic cardinal critical of evolution branded scientific opponents of intelligent design intolerant and said there need not be a conflict between Darwin's and Christian views of life's origins.

---

Definitely true, but ID is NOT the way to resolve this conflict.

quote:

---

Kegwen was listening to Cher while typing:
The last documentary I saw on Darwin seemed to indicate that he had a lot of problems with the Christian faith and religion itself and that his wife was really troubled by that

---

There's a story that claims Darwin accepted Christ on his deathbed. While it is indeed a nice story, and I hope he did make peace with the Lord, I suspect its a fabrication meant to refute evolution by fanatics.

Anyhow...

I went to schools that taught intelligent design exclusively and schools that taught evolution exclusively. Neither kind of school permitted even a short discussion of the other theory. I wish they had, it would have shown confidence in what they were teaching.

Thankfully I was an inquisitive enough kid to go digging into the research on both, and come out with my own beliefs on the matter. What I learned in school didn't impress me, and sounded mysteriously religious coming from both sides.

And knowing the people around here, I'm not suprised.

I found a used needle and a small tin (The kind for those tea-lights) at an ATM machine last winter.

quote:

---

Hireko attempted to be funny by writing:

Thankfully I was an inquisitive enough kid to go digging into the research on both, and come out with my own beliefs on the matter. What I learned in school didn't impress me, and sounded mysteriously religious coming from both sides.

---

It's hard not to be religious about it when you're convinced that you're right in the face of a mindset/idea you find utterly ridiculous and are repulsed that anyone ever considers teaching it to our corruptable youth.

The previous statement applies to both sides.

Kegwen fucked around with this message on 09-27-2005 at 12:03 AM.

quote:

---

Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Kegwen gently hums:
It's hard not to be religious about it when you're convinced that you're right in the face of a mindset/idea you find utterly ridiculous and are repulsed that anyone ever considers teaching it to our corruptable youth.

The previous statement applies to both sides.

---

Oh, please. Considering that evolutionary theory has the full weight of scientific method and peer review behind it, and ID is nothing more than a logical fallacy that was disproved in the fucking Middle Ages, comparing them in that manner accomplishes nothing apart from showcasing your ignorance.

Edit: it's the watchmaker fallacy--look it up. It's been discredited for centuries.

Bloodsage fucked around with this message on 09-27-2005 at 12:18 AM.

quote:

---

Bloodsage said this about your mom:
Oh, please. Considering that evolutionary theory has the full weight of scientific method and peer review behind it, and ID is nothing more than a logical fallacy that was disproved in the fucking Middle Ages, comparing them in that manner accomplishes nothing apart from showcasing your ignorance.

Edit: it's the watchmaker fallacy--look it up. It's been discredited for centuries.

---

Just for the record, I wasn't defending ID. ID disgusts me and anyone that believes it has a shred of scientific merit loses any respect from they once had me.

Right or wrong, I was trying to show the mindset here. ID supporters dismiss the teaching of evolution daily based on their misconceptions of the theory and whatever they think the Bible says about it. Similarly, a reasonable 'don't teach that fucking unscientific bullshit with our tax money' type of person will dismiss the opposing set of beliefs (not theory) as fucking ridiculous, unfounded, unscientific and otherwise meaningless bullshit.

Sorry if it sounded like I was defending the side with nothing to show for themselves but a thick head and a book written, edited, and likely mis-interpreted/-applied by humans.

Kegwen fucked around with this message on 09-27-2005 at 01:04 AM.

quote:

---

Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Kegwen gently hums:
Just for the record, I wasn't defending ID. ID disgusts me and anyone that believes it has a shred of scientific merit loses countless respect from me.

Right or wrong, I was trying to show the mindset here. A hardcore ID proponent would certainly dismiss evolution as ridiculous and horrible. Similarly, a hardcore 'don't teach that fucking unscientific bullshit with our tax money' will dismiss the opposing idea (not theory) as fucking ridiculous, unfounded, unscientific and otherwise meaningless bullshit.

Sorry if it sounded like I was defending the side with nothing to show for themselves but a thick head and a book written, edited, and likely mis-interpreted/-applied by humans.

---

You're still fucking up, because you're comparing closed-minded ID-spouting idiots to people who dismiss ideas only because they utterly lack merit. Saying ID is ridiculous, unfounded, unscientific, and otherwise meaningless bullshit is actually a logically defensible--and demonstrably true--position.

You're falling into what's known as the fallacy of the golden mean.

Bloodsage fucked around with this message on 09-27-2005 at 01:06 AM.

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about John Romero:
You're still fucking up, because you're comparing closed-minded ID-spouting idiots to people who dismiss ideas only because they utterly lack merit. Saying ID is ridiculous, unfounded, unscientific, and otherwise meaningless bullshit is actually a logically defensible--and demonstrably true--position.

You're falling into what's known as the fallacy of the golden mean.

---

You're right. I guess I usually do that to be nice and pretend to treat the opposing view fairly, because thick-headed people don't listen if you tell them everything they believe on a subject is complete horseshit.

Not a good idea in an intellectual discussion, though.

quote:

---

Quoth Kegwen:
You're right. I guess I usually do that to be nice and pretend to treat the opposing view fairly, because thick-headed people don't listen if you tell them everything they believe on a subject is complete horseshit.

Not a good idea in an intellectual discussion, though.

---

Unfortunately, though, it's that very charitable instinct that lets bullshit like ID creep into the popular conscience. Sometimes, the extreme position is the only correct one.

edit: to summarize, its the fundamentalist creationists who are the closed-minded ones - its not the same for both sides.

Demos fucked around with this message on 09-27-2005 at 01:25 AM.

quote:

---

By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 27, 2005; Page A03

HARRISBURG, Pa., Sept. 26 -- New barrages sounded in the evolution war Monday as lawyers for a group of parents challenged the teaching of "intelligent design" as nothing more than an old argument for God's hand wrapped in fancy new cloth.

"This clever tactical repackaging of creationism does not merit consideration," Witold Walczak, legal director of the Pennsylvania American Civil Liberties Union and a lawyer for the parents, told U.S. District Judge John E. Jones in opening arguments. "Intelligent design admits that it is not science unless science is redefined to include the supernatural."

This is, he added, "a 21st-century version of creationism."

Eleven parents from Dover, in central Pennsylvania, are seeking to block their school board from requiring that high school biology teachers read a four-paragraph statement to students that casts doubt on Darwin's theory of evolution. This mandatory statement notes that intelligent design offers an alternative theory for the origin and evolution of life -- namely, that life in all of its complexity could not have arisen without the help of an intelligent hand.

The foremost advocates of intelligent design are silent on whether that intelligent hand belongs to God or some other intelligent force, even including a space alien. The school board, represented by the Thomas More Law Center, a conservative, religiously grounded nonprofit firm, took the position that the case was about freedom of speech.

"There is in fact a controversy over Darwin's theory," Richard Thompson, chief counsel for the law center, said afterward during an impromptu news conference on the courthouse steps. "Clearly both theories have religious implications. But this is not about God."

Last year, however, Dover school board members -- who voted 6 to 3 for the new policy -- made it clear that they believed that the origin of life was guided by a heavenly hand. Several of them suggested that their views on evolution are far closer to Young Earth Creationism, which holds that God created the world 6,000 years ago and that Noah's flood covered Earth, than to intelligent design.

One board member told a public meeting -- in a remark he has since tried to deny -- that the nation "was founded on Christianity, and our students should be taught as such."

The war over the teaching of evolution is almost a century old, the first great shot having been fired in Dayton, Tenn., in the famous 1925 Scopes "monkey trial," in which the ACLU defended a teacher convicted of teaching evolution. Former presidential candidate and prairie populist Williams Jennings Bryan represented the school board. Another shot sounded in 1987, when the Supreme Court prohibited the teaching of creationism in public schools, ruling that it was not science but religion and violated the separation of church and state.

Shortly after that Supreme Court ruling, intelligent design began to appear on the lecture circuit, championed by a small band of scientists and academics. Intelligent design advocates tend to concentrate their criticism on Darwinian theory; they have been far less successful at laying a foundation for a new scientific theory, which by definition must be testable.

This was a point hammered at Monday as the ACLU called its first witness, Kenneth R. Miller, a Brown University biology professor and author of a biology textbook used in nearly half the schools in the nation -- including in Dover. Miller noted that virtually every prominent scientific organization in the United States has upheld Darwin's theory of evolution as an unshakable pillar of science.

Intelligent design, he emphasized, has not fared nearly as well.

"Intelligent design is inherently religious. It is a form of creationism," Miller said during four hours of testimony that often resembled an extended college seminar. "If you invoke a spiritual force in science, I can't test or replicate it.

"Scientific theories are not hunches," he added. "When we say 'theory,' we mean a strong, overarching explanation that ties together many facts and enables us to make testable predictions."

The school board's attorneys countered by arguing that several of the leading intelligent design theorists are respected scientists and professors. And they said the school board merely makes students aware of another viewpoint. The board also mandated the placement in the school library of the book "Of Pandas and People." The book makes the case for intelligent design, and the school board's attorneys made the case that it was sort of an alternative textbook.

But Miller rejoined in his testimony that it was nothing of the sort. He pointed out many examples of outdated or distorted science in the book. He said the errors were so numerous as to amount to an intentional misreading of science, designed to drive unwary students to reject evolutionary theory.

"The errors in the book are systematic," Miller said.

Both sides plan to call a long line of witnesses, from scientists to philosophers to local teachers and parents. And, in a rare moment of agreement, they said the case is likely to eventually reach the Supreme Court.

---

1. Emphasis mine, and might I say, BURRRRRRN!
2. This is what it's going to be all the way to the Supreme Court. The evolution side is going to continually and easily crush the ID side.
3. See if you can spot the fallacy that the ID side used in the article. It's fun and educational!