At least in Dover, PA

CNN Article
Fox News Article

Basically the judge called ID out for what it really was, total bull****, and an underhanded ploy to get God being taught in schools. I read up on ID and it really is horsecrap. It is NOT a science by any stretch. I'm actually pleased it got thrown out. Oh and this is from firm Catholic. This outta please a lot of you.

Edit: How about I actually READ WHOLLY the articles before I post about it, nay?

Your topic is misleading. The judge stated that Intelligent Design could not be taught in schools alongside evolution, not that it was a bull**** idea or had no merit. Now, I happen to agree with you - it's just a silly attempt by the religious right to slip creationism into school curriculum - but I respect their right to believe it (if they do) and teach it to their own children. Just not publicly funded, government run schools. The judge made the only choice she could have.

It was ruled that it should not be taught in biology classes, which is good. "Intelligent Design" has no business being in a biology, or any other science class.

First of all, ID always was unconstitutional.
Secondly, you got my hopes up. I was hoping you would post a news article saying something along the lines of "supreme court ruling says ID is banned from all US public schools."

But hey, one step at a time, eh? Maybe one day seperation of church and state will actually mean something and they'll do something really crazy... like legalizing gay marriage. Then again our nation was founded by a group of rich, white, slave owning men who said "all men are created equal... except the n***ers... and women don't count as men." That's paraphrasing, of course.

Fixed thread title to more suited to the article.

I'm probably going to get a lot of flak for this, but I'm all for teaching both Intelligent Design and Evolution and letting people make up their own damn minds about what they want to believe.

That doesn't work either, Page. If they allow the teaching of intelligent design, then they would be required to begin teaching other ideas as well, else they would be promoting two "religions", if you will, while ignoring others. I have lead religion that believes the world was created by two monkeys and a squirrel, quite by accident.

Honestly, though, I believe in God, and that he created the universe. I don't want it taught in schools, though. Neither do I want evolution taught. There isn't enough evidence (for either argument) to warrant it being cirriculum. Don't teach either.

Evolution is a scientific theory.

Intelligent Design is faith.


Teach Evolution in Science lessons and ID in Religious Education lessons. Jeez, how hard is that?

Also, teach people what "scientific theory" actually means.

Except you can't really do that in public school unless you teach many different religions, and the Christian folk pushing inteligent design don't want that.

Yes. this really would be useful.

Stop. Now. Stop talking about something you're clearly ignorant of. Bring on the Mort-Hog!

Well, as far as I'm concerned, they are both called theories for a reason. I'd like to think that a space faring race brought us here as cavemen just as an experiment. They are coming back to wipe us out cause obviously, we failed.

Calling this "Intelligent Design" intelligent makes me smirk

I'm glad Finland doesn't have your nevere-dnign debate crap in this scale at all.

Put simply, science doesn't work like that.

I fail to see how teaching something like ID is unconstitutional.

As someone who believes in "god", I find Intelligent Design to be an embarassment. While they occasionally make some interesting philosophical points, their scientific arguments tend to remain rather weak. However, I suppose when you're leading a misinformation campaign, and your audience is naive enough to believe anything that you throw at them, it doesn't matter how wrong you are.

/me hugs the national curriculum

(In biology, our teacher said so much as "this is the theory of creation - God made the Heaven, the Earth and the skies. Right, now we'll be spending the next three weeks on the other theory of how man came to be here - the theory of Evolution")

i saw this on the news last night... i pretty much agree that it would be ok to teach it outside science classes.

[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]I fail to see how teaching something like ID is unconstitutional. :confused:[/QUOTE]

Because every argument ID makes against evolution is refuted in beautiful simplicity by evolution, evolution is scientific and ID is not. Teaching ID as a scientific theory is a fallacy and therefore anyone promoting such teaching is trying to promote religion over science. This should NOT be done in school. What SHOULD be done in school is explaining the points of view and practices of as many religions as possible with no bias in a religious studies class, much like what happens in the UK.

thank god!

I don't think ID should be taught in school, that's what church is for.

However, in saying that, ID and Evolution arn't even comparable. The theories cover completely different material. ID presents an explaination of how we were first created. On the other hand, Evolution presents an explaination of how we've changed since we were first created.

Personally, it should be more like this:
Chapter 1: Creation
Discusses how the Big Bang created all of the building blocks of matter and ultamately (over millions of years of coliding and bonding elements) formed the building blocks of life.

Chapter 2: Evoluion
Discusses how the building blocks of life evolved into single-cell life forms and how this process continued to form more complex bodies of life such as humans.

If they wanted to play it safe, they could completely skip Chapter 1 and leave it open for the students to read if they want.

Good. Religion has no place in science.

I agree. I did a speech about this in Communications. I went WAY over my allotted time...

[QUOTE=Outlaw Torn]Well, as far as I'm concerned, they are both called theories for a reason. I'd like to think that a space faring race brought us here as cavemen just as an experiment. They are coming back to wipe us out cause obviously, we failed. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

No no, the earth was comissioned, paid for and managed by mice. <.<;;

Intelligent Design isn't a theory.


It's interesting, really.. Britain doesn't have a constitution, it doesn't have 'separation of church and state' written down anywhere, but seems to do it a whole lot better than the US that does. This 'The Constitution' that you all seem to worship isn't doing much good, eh.

It would do us a whole lot more good if there 1) weren't so many goddamn loopholes and 2) Wasn't protection for the judges to make decisions on a whim, basically.

Seriously, how do judges have the power they do? It pisses me off.

Mort-Hog, you obviously are quite ignorant, so I would recommend you silence yourself immediately.

OH... my... gosh... Pagewizard and I agree on something...
*faints*

But seriously, evolution is a theory about our origins. So is intellegent design. Why shouldn't they both be taught objectively?
No they wouldn't because your "theory" is not widely accepted. They could easily have criteria for determining which theories are worth teaching and which arent. All they need to do is determine which ones are generally accepted by a significant enough group of people.

go UK, we're actually better at something than the US. (other than football/soccer that is)

Seriously though,

Surely you must have religious education classes in the US right? ID is a product of religion, a point of view taken by religious people, therefore it belongs in a religious education classroom, not a science classroom where evolution belongs, the two just can't be compared.

Teach them both, but where they belong.

Well, I went to a smaller school, so they probably couldn't "afford to hire another teacher" (most of the faculty are hardcore Catholics) but our World History teacher did a pretty good job going over what most of the "major" religions believe. I agree, though, an actual class dealing exclusively with religion would've been nice, and much more interesting than most of the other required classes we were forced to take.

BIll Nye knows all the answers.
So does Ms, Cleopatra.

[QUOTE=James Bond]go UK, we're actually better at something than the US. (other than football/soccer that is)

Seriously though,

Surely you must have religious education classes in the US right? ID is a product of religion, a point of view taken by religious people, therefore it belongs in a religious education classroom, not a science classroom where evolution belongs, the two just can't be compared.

Teach them both, but where they belong.[/QUOTE]

No religious education. It's such a hot topic right now--imagine if the criteria for the religion class was messed up in any way for all the religions, and imagine if a biased person got the job. Everyone who was involved in its inception would lose their positions and their jobs. Keeps a lot of laws that should be made from being created.

right, so it's muich better to ignore the fact that religion is an integral part of humanity?

Oh yeah?

Where does it say anything relative in the constitution?

I think its common in the UK to have religious education classes for a set period of time and then have it as an option later, I think there is even the option in some schools over here (UK) to take a GCSE (taken at age 15/16) in it.

Even if you don't agree with religion (like I do) that still doesn't mean you shouldn't be taught it, I still want to know why Israel/Palestine conflict exists, why muslim women walk round dressed head to toe so nothing can be seen, etc...

Bugger it if its a hot topic, it needs to be taught and you just have to be careful with the teaching, I can honestly say that my religious ed teaching was crap but it gave the facts, we read the textbooks, watched the films/videos.

If you don't teach it you are ignorant of it and that is probably the reason for most of the problems in the world today. Any teaching on the subject, be it biased or not would be better than none at all, as long the course has hard facts in it students, people, will make their own mind up.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]No religious education. It's such a hot topic right now--imagine if the criteria for the religion class was messed up in any way for all the religions, and imagine if a biased person got the job. Everyone who was involved in its inception would lose their positions and their jobs. Keeps a lot of laws that should be made from being created.[/QUOTE]


It would be possible to look at religions in a historical sense. I mean, we covered the big religions in world history when I was in high school and it wasn't a big deal. It would be no trouble to expand on those periods of time.

He's not talking about a historical view, as far as I can tell, he's talking about society's views on different religions. I could be wrong, though.

Intelligent design shouldn't be taught because there isn't any serious scientific evidence to back it up (unless you can cite some?). The "theory" itself is flawed because it wasn't achieved through the scientific process. The Intelligent Design theory had a conclusion beforehand: there is a creator. Its proponents then looked for evidence to support their conclusion. That's not scientific. You look at the evidence and then form a theory around that, not the other way around.

Ok... TEACHING it was unconstitutional.

Seperation of church and state. ID is a repackaging of creationism. Creationism is a religious concept. Duh.

Thomas Jefferson originally put a section in the Declaration of Independence about abolishing slavery. Several southern states would not sign so it was removed.

It was also in the first draft of the consitution. It was also removed because several southern states would not sign.

John Adams, and some other early politician were huge proponents of women's rights.

Just thought you ought to know.



Dog breeding is evolution. So is the breeding of other animals and plants. Just think about that.



Both require faith. One has evidence that appears to be ultimately true, and may very well be, but it still requires faith. Science just takes a different kind.

[QUOTE=James Bond]
Even if you don't agree with religion (like I do) that still doesn't mean you shouldn't be taught it, I still want to know why Israel/Palestine conflict exists, why muslim women walk round dressed head to toe so nothing can be seen, etc...
[/QUOTE]

Dude named Abram (God allegedly changed his name to Abraham) had a wife. They had trouble having kids. Because they blamed impotency on the woman back then, his wife told him to have a child with her handmaid, so that he could have an heir. He did so. Meet Ishmael. Then all the sudden Issac comes along. In the Bible Issac is the one he almost sacrifices as a test of his faith, in the Koran it is Ishmael.

Jews-Issac
Arabs-Ishmael

Now, the first born son of a man is supposed to be the heir, at that time. They are both his first born son, but by different women.

They both claim right to Palestine, and there is no way to tell who really is supposed to have it. This also involves religious blessings.

The argument cannot be solved, and it is very difficult to understand this conflict without being involved. Hence the reason we are not helping very much.