Federal Judge Rules Against Intelligent Design

evil agent writes "CNN is reporting that U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III has ruled that Intelligent Design cannot be discussed in Dover, Pennsylvania biology classes. Dover Area School Board members had previously mandated that Intelligent Design be included in the biology curriculum. According to the judge, 'our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.'" Update: 12/20 23:40 GMT by J : eSkeptic has a look back at the trial and what led to it. And the Discovery Institute has issued a press release.

Comments

Teach all

[tonsofpcs]

Shouldn't they be allowed to teach it, so long as they teach all of the current theories?

The sad part is...

[bADlOGIN]

that this sort of right-wing christian fundie crap required the ruling of a federal judge to stop. Worse thing is, I'm sure it's still not over in that we haven't had to put up with the last of this yet.

Yes, and.....

[GmAz]

Yes, and evolution isn't real. Just a theory about how life started. So, then what do they teach?

Re:Well good

[grub]

and than let them discover their own faith.

Kids don't "discover their own faith", they're indoctrinated into whatever supertition their parents force-feed them.
Raising kids to believe in mythology is child abuse.

Is every single /. reader clueless?

[SamLJones]

Do any of you actually know what the lawsuit was about?

Dover had added a small sticker to the cover of their biology textbook, that said (approximately) this: "Evolution is under some debate. If you want to learn more, look at this other book, available in the school library."

THAT'S IT!

My understanding is that the lawsuit was specifically over the fact that introducing ID to the science classroom was a violation of the US Constitution "seperation of church and state" amendment.

The complete text of said amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Did Congress order that sticker put on? No? Then how was it unconstitutional?

Re:but can we still raise questions about evolutio

[dustmachine]

You're making the common mistake that ID proponents always make.

And you're making a nice mistake also by putting words into my post. This isn't the extent of the argument for God. That argument is much bigger and covers more than just the physical sciences (philosophical/ontological). This God of mine is the one who made science and put a nice order to things. This isn't the sun-god chasing the moon-god around the sky on a fiery chariot.

My post is wondering why nobody asks any questions of evolution. Is evolution so sacred that we can't ask questions of it? Can't a decent textbook present some of the problems with evolution and ask the future generation of scientists to help solve them instead of just glossing over it all? "Darwin's theory of evolution (macro-evolution) answers everything (or it eventually will) and we'll even gift-wrap that for you."

There will be always some things they we don't have a good explanation for... yet

And it could certainly not be something outside the 2-dimensional Flatland. That's the talk of madmen. Sure, some puzzles will be solved (and I hope they are because it would sure make things easier), but getting back to my original post, how much shoddy evidence do we have to have in schoolbooks before we start to ask why the editors didn't examine it more closely? Has a generation of scientists been stifled from improving upon evolutionary theory because they don't dare question Darwin?

why can't that same explanation ["it always was"] hold for the universe itself.

That explantion was tried for a while. It didn't hold up once we saw that the universe was expanding. i.e. if it's expanding it must have been smaller -- set the wayback machine for a split second after the big bang. Did it "make science smaller" all of a sudden? And if it didn't exist forever then there must have been "imaginary time" (Hawking, et al.) before that.

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

Science should be taught in the science classroom.

[DaveWick79]

Why is the debate about teaching ID vs. Evolution in the classroom? What should be taught is SCIENCE and only science. Both ID and Evolution are merely theories which try to explain the possibilites of why science is the way it is. Neither one is any more religious in content than the other. So to rule that teaching ID is unconstitutional should really be synonymous with rule that evolution can also not be taught. Because if you are not teaching absolute observed scientific fact, by these standards evolution also belongs in a mythology or related class as well.

Co-equal

[Roadkills-R-Us]

I started out as an evolutionist. I worked really hard to prove that evolution was the full answer. But when you get right down to it, it takes just as much faith to start with the big band and end up with what we have today as it does to say "It's all in Genesis" or "*Someone* clearly did it, whoever it is".

Re:Co-equal

[vertical_98]

All jokes about the 'big band' aside...Evolution is still just a theory. People love to point out that gravity is just a theory also, but you can see gravity's effect every second. Evolution is still not provable, regardless what Slashdot thinks.

Vertical

Re:Well good

[Oligonicella]

No. Where do you stop? Nursery Rhymes?

Re:Well good

[endoplasmicMessenger]

Actually, ID (before it was hijacked by Creationism) technically belongs in a philosophy course. Creationism belongs in a sociology course. And the book of Genesis belongs in a mythology course.

And where would you put the following statement:

The greatest scientific advance of the last 1,000 years was providing the evidence to prove that human beings are independent agents whose lives on earth are neither conferred nor controlled by celestial forces. Although it may be more conventional to measure scientific progress in terms of specific technological developments, nothing was more important than providing the means to release men and women from the hegemony of the supernatural.

My response is that when they remove their atheistic materialism from the science room, I will remove my faith. But not one moment sooner.

BTW, that statement came from the scientific journal Cell. If you are not astounded, then you have probably already been assimilated.

Re:Well good

[Cre8ed]

If any one decided to have a look at ALL the facts, and come in with no presumptions then the only result would be to admit that Evolution is simply not possible, and Intellegent design is the only feasible answer. To think that Evolution is still around today is a joke that is not funny anymore. To teach is is schools as fact, when it can't be proven and very good cases can be made to disprove it, is completely ridiculous. The only reason for the "THEORY" of evolution is still espouted by these "scientists" is that people don't face the facts, that we are all created beings, by a masterful Creator. Because if they face the facts they would be forced to face the reality of their existence, and be subject to an ultimate authority and not themsleves - we live in a world where everyone does what is right in his own eyes -. Science proves Intellegent Design - check the facts. Science proves evolutionary theory and the "random chance" assoicated with it as totally invalid. think about it.....