Dover Judge Rules Against Intelligent Design

[SPLogan]

is y+y=2y falsifiable?

 

[Sunstone]

We like to build our buildings on non-falsifiable stuff, right?

Science has to build its buildings on falsifiable stuff. It can't build them on non-falsifiable stuff. It's kind of like this: If a theory is falsifiable then the theory can be proven true or proven false. But if a theory is non-falsifiable, then the theory can never be proven true or proven false. So, in order to have theories that can be tested and proven either true or false, the theories have got to be crafted so they are falsifiable.

This is a simplistic explanation of it, to be sure. And it's not a precise explanation. But it's a way of looking at it that is approximately true, and will work for many circumstances.

 

[Sunstone]

is y+y=2y falsifiable?

If y+y=2y exists in the relm of mathematics alone, it is irrelevent whether it is falsifiable or not. It is only if y+y=2y can be said to represent something real that the question of whether it is falsifiable has any meaning. And if it is indeed said to represent something that is real, then yes, it is falsifiable.

 

[SPLogan]

Science has to build its buildings on falsifiable stuff. It can't build them on non-falsifiable stuff. It's kind of like this: If a theory is falsifiable then the theory can be proven true or proven false. But if a theory is non-falsifiable, then the theory can never be proven true or proven false. So, in order to have theories that can be tested and proven either true or false, the theories have got to be crafted so they are falsifiable.

Logically, it seems that something that cannot be proven false, could theoreically be proven true. Likewise, it seems like something that cannot be proven true, could theoretically be proven false.

Perhaps we've come to the very fine line where the subjects of science and religion meet.

 

[Sunstone]

Logically, it seems that something that cannot be proven false, could theoreically be proven true. Likewise, it seems like something that cannot be proven true, could theoretically be proven false.

Perhaps we've come to the very fine line where the subjects of science and religion meet.

Actually, we've come to a very fine line where my earlier explanation of the logic of science is no longer good enough. So, I'll have to go into the detail that I was hoping to avoid.

In science, nothing can be proven true. Things can only be proven false. Because of this, nothing is ever 100% certain in science. Also, because of this, scientists usually speak of evidence for a theory, rather than of proof of a theory. The more evidence for the theory, the more likely the theory is true. But no amount of evidence will ever prove that a theory is true. Since things can be proven false, however, science is able to sort out the sheep from the goats in this manner: it can prove a theory is false and not worth spending any more time and effort on. And it can also prove that a theory cannot be logically proven false, and hence, not worth spending any more time and effort on. This latter thing is the same thing as saying that a theory is non-falsifiable.

 

[Sunstone]

This morning, December 20, 2005, Judge John Jones III handed down his ruling against the teaching of Intelligent Design:

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

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. 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. 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.

To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions.

Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

John E. Jones III
United States District Judge

​

 

[SPLogan]

I actually agree with the judge. Nothing taught by evolution, big bang etc. contradicts the idea of Intelligent Design. Evolution is not manifestly opposed to Intelligent Design and therefore, if anything, ID violates the anti-establishment clause, not necessarily evolution. ID is true, and of course, non-falsifiable but the particulars of it are hopelessly nebulous because it's simply an abstract concept like y+y=2y.


I am a Creationist, not an Intelligent Designist. I trust our scientist and their objective analysis of our universe to the extent that it does not contradict the recorded history contained in Holy Scripture. I believe that "Intelligent Design" is simply a way for Judeo-Christian creationists to pretend to be merely deistic; not espousing any particular religious beliefs. In their attempt to be politically correct, they throw the baby out with the bath water. The real point is that "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I actually agree with the judge. Nothing taught by evolution, big bang etc. contradicts the idea of Intelligent Design.

What is instructive about this statement is that the idea is fairly common and wholly incorrect, demonstrating a flawed understanding of evolution - which is the antithesis of design.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's very true, Jayhawker. In my experience, the only gays who don't oppose ID are the few who think ID stands for "Interior Design", poor souls.

Has Deut developed a sense of humor? Must be drinking ROFL!!!

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

I actually agree with the judge. Nothing taught by evolution, big bang etc. contradicts the idea of Intelligent Design. Evolution is not manifestly opposed to Intelligent Design and therefore, if anything, ID violates the anti-establishment clause, not necessarily evolution. ID is true, and of course, non-falsifiable but the particulars of it are hopelessly nebulous because it's simply an abstract concept like y+y=2y.


I am a Creationist, not an Intelligent Designist. I trust our scientist and their objective analysis of our universe to the extent that it does not contradict the recorded history contained in Holy Scripture. I believe that "Intelligent Design" is simply a way for Judeo-Christian creationists to pretend to be merely deistic; not espousing any particular religious beliefs. In their attempt to be politically correct, they throw the baby out with the bath water. The real point is that "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth."

So you support what scientist have been able to discover, using the scientific method? Unless of course, it goes against what the Bible says?

Your logic astounds me. You buy what science says about everything else it has to say, except where it goes against scripture written thousands of years ago? You do realize of course that according to the most learned Biblical scholars of the middle ages that the Sun revolves around the Earth. According to them, a heliocentric solar system was heretical as it went against the teachings of the Bible.

You still want to claim the Sun revolves around the Earth? Cause in order to be consistent, I am pretty sure that is the position you are going to have to take. But then logical consistency and intellectual honesty have never been a requirement of faith I suppose.

B.

 

[painted wolf]

y+y=2y is falcifiable. All math is, it isn't nebulous at all.
ID is not falcifiable, it is utterly nebulous. Thus it is not science, or math.

wa:do

 

[YmirGF]

You folks are so brutal. Next you are going to insist that Pixie's and fairy dust are not real.

​

 

[Sunstone]

You folks are so brutal. Next you are going to insist that Pixie's and fairy dust are not real.

​

The brutality of scientists is notorious. They want to keep God, pixies, fairy dust, and Santa Claus out of the science classroom. Brutes!

 

[greatcalgarian]

Victors hail US evolution ruling

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is widely accepted by scientists

A US court decision to ban the teaching of "intelligent design" has been hailed by anti-creationism campaigners. A federal judge ruled in favour of 11 parents in Dover, Pennsylvania, who argued that Darwinian evolution must be taught as fact in biology lessons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4547734.stm



In his ruling, Judge Jones demolished assertions by members of Dover's former school board, or administrators, that the theory of intelligent design (ID) was based around scientific rather than religious belief.

He accused them of "breathtaking inanity", of lying under oath and of trying to introduce religion into schools through the back door. The judge said he had determined that ID was not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is the 3rd post today ...

 

[Sunstone]

From CNN:

"The new school board president, Bernadette Reinking, said the board wants to place intelligent design in an elective social studies class instead."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/12/21/evolution.debate.ap/

Well, at least that gets it out of the biology classroom.

 

[YmirGF]

I think what irks me about this is one small chunk from the CNN story:

"The policy's supporters on the board displayed "striking ignorance" about intelligent design, said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench in 2002. Several board members lied to conceal religious motives, he added."

Let me get this straight. These deeply religious Christians LIED to a judge?

Tell me I am making something out of nothing here. Please.

 

[Smoke]

Let me get this straight. These deeply religious Christians LIED to a judge?

Why does that surprise you?

 

[Sunstone]

Let me get this straight. These deeply religious Christians LIED to a judge?

Tell me I am making something out of nothing here. Please.

Unfortunately, I don't think you're making something out of nothing. The old school board members showed a lack of intellectual honesty and integrity through out this whole sordid mess, from their first vote to include ID in the classroom to the judge's ruling in the case. It's no wonder the citizens of Dover voted every last one of them out of office.

I don't think it's entirely an accident that the old Dover school board was as intellectually corrupt as it proved to be. Many anti evolutionists are either ignorant or intellectually dishonest about the theory of evolution. And several members of the old Dover school board proved themselves in court to be both ignorant and intellectually dishonest about evolution. It's a shame they lied to the judge, and it's a shame they once were entrusted with the education of children.

 

[YmirGF]

Why does that surprise you?

It doesn't really MidnightBlue. I just thought it reflects poorly on a proposed theory if its proponets are found to be lying. In the old days, we used to call it a hoax. If the media played on the angle of "lying for Jesus" these folks would never recover whatever credibility they may have had. Some might consider it to be a bit more than a mere setback.