| Author |
Message |
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
 Sat Sep 24, 2005 12:02 pm �Intelligent design� faces first big court test |
|
| Quote: | �Intelligent design� faces first big court test
Parents sue after alternate to evolution added to science curriculum
Alex Johnson
Reporter
A federal judge in Pennsylvania will hear arguments Monday in a lawsuit that both sides say could set the fundamental ground rules for how American students are taught the origins of life for years to come.
At issue is an alternative to the standard theory of evolution called �intelligent design.� Proponents argue that the structure of life on Earth is too complex to have evolved through natural selection, challenging a core principle of the biological theory launched by Charles Darwin�s �The Origin of Species� in 1859. Instead, contend adherents of intelligent design, life is probably the result of intervention by an intelligent agent.
Intelligent design has been bubbling up since 1987, when the Supreme Court ruled that public schools could not teach the biblical account of creation instead of evolution, because doing so would violate the constitutional ban on establishment of an official religion.
Critics deride intelligent design as creationism gussied up for the courts; advocates say it is an explicitly scientific construct that makes no supposition about the identity or nature of the designer.
The disagreement has led to anguished public debates and hearings before local school boards for almost 20 years. While judges have considered smaller questions barnacled to the issue, the trial that opens Monday is believed to be the first time a federal court has been asked to decide the fundamental question: Is intelligent design religion or science?
Finally, a chance for a definitive ruling
The Pennsylvania case �is probably the most important legal situation of creation and evolution in the last 18 years,� said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, which opposes challenges to the standard model of evolution.
�This will be the first legal challenge to intelligent design, and we�ll see whether they have been able to mask the creationist underpinnings and basic orientation of intelligent design,� she said. Regardless who wins, �it will have quite a significant impact on what happens in American public school education.�
The suit, brought by 11 parents, challenges the Dover Area School District�s adoption last year of an addition to the science curriculum directing teachers � in addition to teaching evolution � to tell students about intelligent design and refer them to an alternative textbook that champions it. Three opposing board members resigned after the vote.
The parents contended that the directive amounted to an attempt to inject religion into the curriculum in violation of the First Amendment. Their case was joined by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation for Church and State, with support from Scott�s organization.
The school board is being defended pro bono by the Thomas More Law Center, a Christian law firm in Ann Arbor, Mich. The case is being heard without a jury in Harrisburg by U.S. District Judge John Jones III, whom President Bush appointed to the bench in 2002.
Science organizations have generally turned their backs on forums in which they have been challenged to defend Darwinian evolution, on the theory that engaging the intelligent design school in any way is to take its ideas too seriously. For example, when the Kansas Board of Education held hearings this year on new science standards that criticized evolution, science groups boycotted.
The Pennsylvania case, however, gives scientists the chance to go on the attack, forcing intelligent-design advocates to defend their beliefs. But because local school boards have almost complete latitude to set the content of the curriculum, the plaintiffs must navigate a narrow path.
It isn't enough for them to discredit intelligent design � indeed, that is almost irrelevant to the legal question. Instead, what they must do is show that the school board�s decision would have an unconstitutionally religious purpose and effect, Scott said.
Even so, Scott and others make no bones about their principal motivation: Intelligent design as science is bogus, they insist, and teaching it is a grave disservice to students.
�Intelligent design is simply the most recent version of creationism, which is admittedly a religious concept,� said Alan Leshner, chief executive of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science and publisher of the journal Science. �There is no scientific basis to intelligent design.�
Debating the terms of the debate
This is where things get sticky, because it all boils down to a basic argument over just what is evolution and what is religion.
Advocates have labored for years to have intelligent design be taken seriously as science. Although many of the leading thinkers in the movement openly acknowledge their Christian faith, they also sport Ph.D.s in hard science and maintain that their suppositions are rooted in principled observance of the scientific method.
And they generally have no problem with much of evolutionary theory, which can � in part �be stated as the change of species over time. Evidence, they agree, amply bears out this observation, which is known as micro-evolution.
Where they dissent is in what�s known as macro-evolution � the transformation over time of a species into another species. The distinction is drawn in �Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins,� the alternative text endorsed by the Dover school board:
�Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact � fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings. Some scientists have arrived at this view since fossil forms first appear in the rock record with their primitive features intact, rather than gradually developing.�
In other words, their argument is not so much with evolution per se as it is with what they see as the failure of evolution to account for how it all started. It is perfectly reasonable as science, they believe, to explore whether an outside agent triggered diversity of complex biological structures seemingly engineered to sustain life on Earth.
Intelligent-design supporters are careful to say they don�t know who or what that outside agent was, but to the large majority of biologists, that�s beside the point: Science is concerned with the natural world, while intelligent design supposes an agent independent of the natural world.
You can teach such concepts, Leshner and Scott say; indeed, you should � just do it in philosophy and religion and literature classes. Don�t do it in science classes, because, by definition, that�s religion. It isn�t science.
�If we human beings evolved as a result of natural cause, are we special to God? Does life then have some sort of purpose?� Scott asked.
They�re legitimate questions, but �these are issues that are outside of science,� she said. �These are not issues that should be part of the science curriculum.�
Tough spot for ID crowd
The Dover case raises difficult issues for many advocates of intelligent design, who sometimes feel as if they�re dismissed as rubes or Bible thumpers trying to wiggle God back into the classroom in a white lab coat.
Indeed, the Discovery Institute � the Seattle-based think tank that is the intellectual engine of the movement � finds itself opposing both sides. While it criticized the ACLU for pursuing an �Orwellian� stifling of scientific debate, it also disagreed with the Dover school board�s vote last year.
�Discovery Institute strongly opposes the ACLU�s effort to make discussions of intelligent design illegal. At the same time, we disagree with efforts to get the government to require the teaching of intelligent design,� the institute said in a statement this week.
�Misguided policies like the one adopted by the Dover School District are likely to be politically divisive and hinder a fair and open discussion of the merits of intelligent design among scholars and within the scientific community, points we have made repeatedly since we first learned about the Dover policy in 2004.�
Regardless, the end result could be some judicial proclamation of that kind. Because the losing side is likely to appeal every step of the way, the case may well end up at the Supreme Court, leading to a ruling that could set a national precedent.
That is �a disturbing prospect,� the Discovery Institute said � judges should not be telling scientists �what is legitimate scientific inquiry and what is not.�
� 2005 MSNBC Interactive
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9444600
|
It's about time Scientists went on the attack and about time we took this to Court. I'm sick of people claiming that ID is science. It's Psuedoscience with religious backing.
Keep SCIENCE in a SCIENCE classroom. Let ID be taught in Philosophy or religion class because it's religion.
[edit]: whoops, I forgot the quote tags.
-------signature-------
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." President Thomas Jefferson
"A man's respect for law and order exists in precise relationship to the size of his paycheck." Adam Clayton Powell Jr.
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Sat Sep 24, 2005 12:27 pm |
|
^ I agree. Intellegent Design is something that is fine to teach, in a philosophy or religion class.
Although, a science teacher presents it as another theory alongside Darwinism or it comes up in discussion I'm fine with it. Just so long as it is being taught as an idea or theory, not scientific fact.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:25 pm |
|
I think that in a science class, whatever theory that has the most scientific backing and proof behind it should be taught, whatever that theory may be.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:48 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | I think that in a science class, whatever theory that has the most scientific backing and proof behind it should be taught, whatever that theory may be. |
That's kind of what I was trying to say. It seems to be the logical way to teach science.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:48 pm |
|
I think both theories should be taught. ID is NOT a philosophical ideal--it is a LOGICAL scientific theory. We shouldn't limit the scope of lessons to one theory.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:51 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | I think both theories should be taught. ID is NOT a philosophical ideal--it is a LOGICAL scientific theory. We shouldn't limit the scope of lessons to one theory. |
Riddle me this. Where is it scientific?
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:58 pm |
|
Since they are all technically theories, shouldn't they all have representation? "We really don't know how blah blah blah, but here are some theories, scientific, and others that have been held in beleif for a long time".
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Sep 24, 2005 2:09 pm |
|
Yes. And I think that Intelligent Design is the most logical--it's really just the belief that a higher power DESIGNED the universe, NOT the biblical beliefs of creation. Just a logical theory about how something greater had to have designed the universe to work. Logical to me.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Sat Sep 24, 2005 2:14 pm |
|
^Do you have any scientific proof of a higher power? I don't doubt you faith, but this is about science and there is more physical evidence of Darwinism than there is of Intelligent design.
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Sat Sep 24, 2005 2:19 pm |
|
| TrekkieMage wrote: | | ^Do you have any scientific proof of a higher power? I don't doubt you faith, but this is about science and there is more physical evidence of Darwinism than there is of Intelligent design. |
I would argue that you could be a Darwinist and for intelligent design. Just because there "is" evolution, doesn't mean a higher power couldn't just as well have created that.
There are holes in both theories, depending on how you want to look at it. People who believe in evolution seldom believe on the same rhythum of the process. I disagree with teaching a single theory. How blind is it to accept only one thing as "truth?" Is it not the purpose of science to explore every possibility you can, probe at every idea? Science, philosophy, mathematics, history...they're all intertwined, every one of them.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Sep 24, 2005 2:21 pm |
|
Not in a liberal society, we can't. 
But I agree with you, Exalya. We shouldn't allow one idea to be taught, and ONLY that idea.
Also, it's logical to, looking at the universe, decide that a higher power designed things--it's more logical than an atom, appearing out of nothing, exploded and caused the universe to form.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Sat Sep 24, 2005 2:22 pm |
|
| Exalya wrote: | I would argue that you could be a Darwinist and for intelligent design. Just because there "is" evolution, doesn't mean a higher power couldn't just as well have created that.
There are holes in both theories, depending on how you want to look at it. People who believe in evolution seldom believe on the same rhythum of the process. I disagree with teaching a single theory. How blind is it to accept only one thing as "truth?" Is it not the purpose of science to explore every possibility you can, probe at every idea? Science, philosophy, mathematics, history...they're all intertwined, every one of them. |
A very good point...I kind of tried to point it out but butchered my train of thought...
| TrekkieMage wrote: | | Although, a science teacher presents it as another theory alongside Darwinism or it comes up in discussion I'm fine with it. Just so long as it is being taught as an idea or theory, not scientific fact. |
[edit - the quote tag wasn't working due to me putting spaces in it  ]
Last edited by TrekkieMage on Sat Sep 24, 2005 7:30 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Sep 24, 2005 2:23 pm |
|
^The way a lot of teachers, bordering on most, I would say, teach it is more like it IS fact than a theory.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Sat Sep 24, 2005 3:47 pm |
|
That doesn't mean we have to start teaching relgion in science classrooms. ID is religion with a Pseudoscience backing. It states that a higher power, Which is a dumbed down way of saying God, created everything. It lacks any way to test it using the scientific method and leaves you stranded basing all it's facts on beliefs rather then a testable hypothesis.
Like I said before, Leave Science in a science classroom
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Sep 24, 2005 3:51 pm |
|
I would NOT call it religion. It is NOT religion--it's just the additional belief that the universe was designed my a more intelligent being, which is more than likely so.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:42 pm |
|
I refur you to the book of Genesis.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
ID: in the begining, A higher intelligence created the earth.
Not much difference is there?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:48 pm |
|
CREATED and DESIGNED are different things. From my understanding of it, intelligent designed isn't that a higher power CREATED the universe, but that a superior being DESIGNED (and guided) it through creation, but DID NOT create it.
And even if one considers that higher power to be God, it still doesn't make a religious idea.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Sat Sep 24, 2005 5:11 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | CREATED and DESIGNED are different things. |
No, they're different ways of saying the same thing.
| Republican_Man wrote: | | From my understanding of it, intelligent designed isn't that a higher power CREATED the universe, but that a superior being DESIGNED (and guided) it through creation, but DID NOT create it. |
You're taking the same idea, changing nouns and adjectives, and retyping it.
| Republican_Man wrote: | | And even if one considers that higher power to be God, it still doesn't make a religious idea. |
In the eyes of the courts, scientists and people, Yes it does.
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Sat Sep 24, 2005 5:49 pm |
|
Until some crafty little person invents a time machine, you can't "prove" any of this. It's all speculation.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Sat Sep 24, 2005 6:45 pm |
|
We should be ashamed, blaming this fiasco on God. Really, dumping all our problems on the shoulders of a higher power won't solve them. 
The origin of life, while open to speculation, is really quite academic, as is the mechanism. You can only spend so much time studying it before you run out of avenues. What's really interesting is how life works, and how it has developed from its constituent amino acids.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how a higher power would factor into this. Science, as it is now, pretty much has a standardised view of how life works. We're still pushing the frontiers of our knowledge, which is why biology is one of the best disciplines to learn right now, but really, we're quite aware that things like lipids and carbohydrates and proteins are very important to the body.
So does whether or not a higher power had a hand in designing lipids, carbohydrates, and proteins have any bearing on how they work or why they are important? Not so much. It's certainly relevant in a philosophy discussion, but not in a science classroom. Science is about how things work, not why they work.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Sep 24, 2005 7:04 pm |
|
But when you're talking about the formation of the universe and evolution and stuff, that's a WHY question. Then science shouldn't, therefore, be studying that period.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sat Sep 24, 2005 7:06 pm |
|
The "why" tends to answer the "how," anyway.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sat Sep 24, 2005 7:21 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | I think both theories should be taught. ID is NOT a philosophical ideal--it is a LOGICAL scientific theory. We shouldn't limit the scope of lessons to one theory. |
Riddle me this. Where is it scientific? |
Define scientific. I believe in evolution, but I don't think anyone should teach it as fact. In fact, I think FAR too many things are taught as fact, when in reality it's either theory of opinion.
Our schools have long been breeding a society of closed minded drones, what school says, goes. Schools need to be aware that they are sometimes wrong.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Sep 24, 2005 7:29 pm |
|
Yes, and should allow for discourse. I don't know what's so frightening to Liberals about allowing for the free expression of ideas that happen to disagree with them. Ope, global warming has to be taught like fact--with the other side not being seen. Same with evolution. Same with EVERYTHING ELSE that they like. Right. It's pretty much, for all intents and purposes, brainwashing, from how I see it.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sat Sep 24, 2005 7:33 pm |
|
Well, global warming is real. Its how much you attribute to natural causes/man-made effects that create the difference.
Lots of things that are widely (if not totally) accepted as fact, are still theories. For example, Milankovitch's Theory. It basically states that whichever side of the earth is closest to the sun, is the warmest. We all accept this to be true, its basic 9th Grade science. However, its still just a theory. The reason its taught is because it has the most scientific backing behind it.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
