Dover Judge Rules Against Intelligent Design

[greatcalgarian]

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.

Could these persons who lied in court be charged with contempt of court or something similar?

 

[JerryL]

Could these persons who lied in court be charged with contempt of court or something similar?

In theory? Purgery.

 

[Sunstone]

US public opinion is also extremely hostile to Darwinian theory. In a national poll two months ago, 51% of Americans said they believed that human beings were created by God. Another 30% said God guided human evolution, and only 15% thought that humans had evolved without divine intervention.

"Anyone who thinks a court ruling is going to kill off interest in intelligent design is living in another world," said West.

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.asp...aking_news/breaking_news__international_news/

The ignorance of Americans concerning the theory of evolution is profound. I wonder if it's also growing?

 

[ChrisP]

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=259735&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/

The ignorance of Americans concerning the theory of evolution is profound. I wonder if it's also growing?

I blame apathy. Most people just don't care anymore.

In a world where not many people ever feel content, they're busy just trying to get by and find some pleasure.

Sometimes it's easier just to close your eyes and wish it all away (not that I'm promoting that)

 

[Sunstone]

From an USA Today Report:

The cases Jones could affect:

• In Kansas, the state board of education adopted standards that opponents say single out evolution for criticism and open the door to supernatural causation. Steve Abrams, chairman of the school board, says the Jones decision won't affect Kansas.

"It's apples and oranges," he says. Abrams says the board won't revisit its policy but voters can decide next year when five of 10 board seats are up: "They will have the final say."

• In Cobb County, Ga., a three-judge federal appeals panel is weighing whether to uphold a lower court ban on a textbook sticker that said evolution is "a theory, not a fact" and should be "critically considered." The stickers were removed from more than 34,000 books in the summer.

• In Ohio, the state board of education adopted a statement supporting critical analysis of evolution and lesson plans opponents say were lifted straight from creationist and intelligent design literature.

"It's the same stuff that went to trial in Dover and was found not to be science," says Patricia Princehouse, a biology professor at Case Western Reserve University.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-12-22-intelligent-design_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

 

[Sunstone]

I blame apathy. Most people just don't care anymore.

I think that plays a big part in it, as does intellectual laziness, and intellectual dishonesty.

 

[YmirGF]

What I am wondering now is what if little Sally gets up in her Science Class in Dover, and complains about some aspect of Evolution because it conflicts with her belief in Intelligent Design? Does she get told to sit down? Does she get sent to the Principal's office? Or do they discuss it?

This is a grassroots phenomenah. This isn't the end of ID... it's only the start.

 

[JerryL]

What I am wondering now is what if little Sally gets up in her Science Class in Dover, and complains about some aspect of Evolution because it conflicts with her belief in Intelligent Design? Does she get told to sit down? Does she get sent to the Principal's office? Or do they discuss it?

What happens when sally gets up in her science class and complains about astronomy because it conflicts with her belief that th Earth is the flat center of the universe?

 

[Sunstone]

This is a grassroots phenomenah. This isn't the end of ID... it's only the start.

I agree that this is a grass roots phenomenon, and that we haven't seen the end of the ID movement. What's the cure for ID? Better science education?

 

[BUDDY]

Personally, I hope that it is dropped. I am a creationist and a christian, and I believe that ID is just a rather disenginuous and dishonest way of trying to get some sort of creationist belief into the school system, without calling it what it is. While I believe in creation, I do not believe in sugar coating it in order to slip it into the classroom. Call it what it is, or don't mention it at all. Follow the rules, or try to change them in an honest way.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Another scientific substantiated with facts recognition of evolution:


Science magazine's breakthroughs of 2005

• Winner: Evolution in action. Genome sequencing and painstaking field observations shed light on the intricacies of how evolution works.
• Runner up: Planetary blitz. Europe's Huygens probe touched down on Saturn's moon Titan in January. It was joined by a fleet of other explorers, including Nasa's Deep Impact, which smashed a hole in a comet.
• In bloom. Molecular biologists pinned down several of the molecular cues responsible for spring's vibrant burst of colour.
• Neutron stars. Satellites and ground telescopes shed light on the violent behaviour of neutron stars; city-sized corpses of stars that pack matter into an extreme state.
• Miswiring the brain. Researchers gained clues about the mechanisms of disorders such as schizophrenia, dyslexia and Tourrete's syndrome.
• Complicated Earth. Comparisons of rocks from Earth and outer space forced scientists to scrap long-held views of how our planet formed.
• Protein portrait. Scientists got their best look yet at the molecular structure of a voltage-gated potassium channel.
• Change of climate. More evidence implicating human activities in global warming was presented, the magazine said.
• Systems biology. Molecular biologists are looking to engineering in order to understand the behaviour of complex systems.
• Bienvenue Iter. After 18 months of wrangling, the $12bn International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (Iter) got a home: Cadarache in France.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4552466.stm

 

[scitsofreaky]

Why do people keep calling evolution Darwinism? Natural selection is only a part of evolution, and not even a fundamental part at that.
I don't know if this was covered (too many pages to read them all), but Darwin's THEORY would never become a law because laws and theories are two completely different things. A law describes what is happening, a theory describes how it is happening. I would say the vast majority of people don't know that Evolution is both a law and a theory.

As for ID, it isn't even a theory, but a hypothesis. So ID is not an "alternative" to Evolution because it has not (and could not) been tested. The only argument ID really has is irreducible complexity, which is untestable. It is based on ignorance of how systems evolve, and the idea that since we don't know how something evolved, we never can. IC is laughable, and so is ID.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Why do people keep calling evolution Darwinism? Natural selection is only a part of evolution, and not even a fundamental part at that.
I don't know if this was covered (too many pages to read them all), but Darwin's THEORY would never become a law because laws and theories are two completely different things. A law describes what is happening, a theory describes how it is happening. I would say the vast majority of people don't know that Evolution is both a law and a theory.

As for ID, it isn't even a theory, but a hypothesis. So ID is not an "alternative" to Evolution because it has not (and could not) been tested. The only argument ID really has is irreducible complexity, which is untestable. It is based on ignorance of how systems evolve, and the idea that since we don't know how something evolved, we never can. IC is laughable, and so is ID.

An hypothesis is a first step in explaining an observed phenomena. After a hypothesis is being made, it is then subjected to tests, and if the tests holds, the hypothesis then becomes the theory. When the theory has been repeatedly tested, and no other way of finding any fault with it, the theory then becomes a law. However, in the field of science, occasionally, an earlier law may fall apart when human being knowledge increased.

 

[JerryL]

An hypothesis is a first step in explaining an observed phenomena. After a hypothesis is being made, it is then subjected to tests, and if the tests holds, the hypothesis then becomes the theory. When the theory has been repeatedly tested, and no other way of finding any fault with it, the theory then becomes a law. However, in the field of science, occasionally, an earlier law may fall apart when human being knowledge increased.

This is not accurate.

A hypothesis is subjected to scrutiny, and must make testable predictions which must resolve true. It must not be falsifiable and fit all available facts. When all these conditions are met, you have a theorum.

A law is a different critter entirely. Where a hypothesis or theorum attempts to make a causal claim (natural selection and mutation result in modern diversity), a law attempts to create a mathmatical or logical relationship (such as the law if inheretence).

There is no difference in "truth" between a law and a hypothesis; they are simply different things. A full theory contains theorums, laws, and facts.

 

[greatcalgarian]

This is not accurate.

A hypothesis is subjected to scrutiny, and must make testable predictions which must resolve true. It must not be falsifiable and fit all available facts. When all these conditions are met, you have a theorum.

A law is a different critter entirely. Where a hypothesis or theorum attempts to make a causal claim (natural selection and mutation result in modern diversity), a law attempts to create a mathmatical or logical relationship (such as the law if inheretence).

There is no difference in "truth" between a law and a hypothesis; they are simply different things. A full theory contains theorums, laws, and facts.

I am talking about theory in Science:

<H2>Science

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it does in other contexts. Neither is a scientific theory a fact. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven. All scientific understanding takes the form of hypotheses, theories, or laws.

Theories are typically ways of explaining why things happen, often, but not always after the fact that they happen is no longer in scientific dispute. In referring to the "theory of global warming" for example, the worldwide temperatures have been measured and seem to be increasing. The "theory of global warming" refers instead to scientific work that attempts to explain how and why this could be happening.

In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.

</H2>

 

[linwood]

What if it was a class not categorized in sciences?

Perfectly acceptable.
I think all kinds of philosophies, religions, and concepts should at least be brought into discussion.
In the proper context.

You could send 100 people into a room and 99 of them see a pink elephant and 1 saw a blue elephant. So who is right? the 99 or the 1?

The one who is right is the one who takes a skin sample from the elephant and analizes what part of a light spectrum reflected of the sample is observable to the naked human eye.
If this test determines the human eye perceives a blue spectrum then you are right.

Can`t exactly do that with this "designer" though can ya?

This brings up a good point. "god" doesn't have to be I.D. could just be a super smart alien!

Could be purple elves too...who knows?

But rather, challenging what is already being taught. I don't think this is done in classes and ID could be a start of explaining gaps and details.

It`s not up to the challenge, when an alternative hypotheisis is up to the challenge you can trust that science will thrust it into the discussion.
It`s not likely to happen though, evolution has a better foundation of evidence than gravity theory does.

It's interesting to see how unscientific and dogmatic people behave when defending a particular set of scientific assumptions, as if the very scientific method were in jeopardy by someone introducing a less-tested hypothesis.

The point isn`t that it is "less tested" the point is that it "isn`t testable" and never will be.
If it isn`t testable it cannot be science.
The need for falsification is the very cornerstone of scientific method without it we`ve got....Voo Doo.

Other than ID, what are some other "non-falsifiable" assumptions that science avoids?

All of them.
If it isn`t falsifiable science can`t do anything with it because ultimately all science does is present hypothesis and then spend eternity attemtping to falisify that same hypothesis.
Thats what science is.
Science cannot deal with the supernatural because science is by definition the study of physical nature

Most, perhaps all, of Freudian psychology is non-falsifiable

I would argue that Feud never entered the scientific realm.
I`d further argue that psychology itself rarely if ever steps in there either.

Likewise, because science is done religiously, it is contains non-falsifiable assumptions.

I told you guys that whole Big Bang cosmology singularity thing would backfire.

What is Freudian psychology?

It`s the ramblings of a madman.

The theory of evolution is falsifiable. As is the Big Bang.

You`re not helping science here.:jiggy:

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

Yes repeatedly and intentionally and idiotically and it apparently really pissed the judge off.
His decision isn`t so much a denial of the validity of ID as it is a scathing destruction of it that could get him in trouble with Mcains new torture bill.
I personally loved it.

The Harrisburg DA is considering purjury charges against some of the school board members.
Thats serious.

By the way, I`ve read the vast majority of daily trrasncripts of this trial and the entire 130 some odd pages of the judges decision.

The wedge document was brought up and the school board did blatently lie while Behe pissed the judge off numerous times with his evasive underhanded testimony.
The judge silenced both attorneys at times in order to question Behe himself in order to let him know he wasn`t dealing with his crap.

It is a sweet read.



Next stop is Kansas I believe.

 

[linwood]

I haven`t seen it posted here so i`m leaving a link.
This is the entire judges opinion/decision regarding this trial.
It`s 139 pages long but the good stuff starts at page 125 or so.
he`s really not happy with the defendants ..really not happy.
It`s a PDF file so download at your liesure.

Said the judge: "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."

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

here`s the transcripts of the entire trial, millers testimony is great.
It`s interesting to read these scientists giving testimony because they are not at all tripped up by a lawyers trick questions.
They repeatedly ask the defense lawyers to qualify and narrow their questions and at times refuse to answer because the lawyer is not allowing them to qualify their own answers..they don`t do "yes or No" questions.
the judge often steps in to shut the lawyer up so the witness can fully answer.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

Prosecutors are seeking purjury charges against some of the school board members.
This is a link to Pennsylvania paper.
it requires submitting a zip code and date of birth but access is free and no registration.

http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1135248153247780.xml&coll=1

 

[JerryL]

I am talking about theory in Science:

So am I. Theorys don't become laws.

 

[Sunstone]

http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/122705/sub_slu001.shtml

By DEBRA LEMOINE
[email protected] Florida parishes bureau

HAMMOND -- When a federal judge in Pennsylvania banned public schoolteachers from offering intelligent design as an alternative theory to evolution last week, he relied heavily on the work of a Southeastern Louisiana University professor and Hammond native. A proponent and product of Hammond public schools, philosophy Professor Barbara Forrest says her work to debunk intelligent design stems from her desire to protect the integrity of public education.

"It's because of the good education I got in the public schools here that I am able to do what I do," she said.

Rob Boston, assistant director of communications for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, calls Forrest the country's leading social historian on the creationism movement.

"I'm not aware of anybody else out there who's done the research and understands the movement like she does," Boston said.

His group, along with the Pennsylvania American Civil Liberties Union, helped the 11 parents in Dover, Pa., who sued their School Board for backing intelligent design.

Forrest co-wrote "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" with biologist Paul R. Gross.

She argues intelligent design is repackaged creationism, the belief that the Earth was created as detailed in the Book of Genesis.

Intelligent design holds that biological life is so complex it had to originate from an intelligent source.

Proponents don't name the source as the Christian God.

Forrest said her book is the main reason she was asked to be an expert witness in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a case centering on a school board policy requiring teachers to suggest that students study intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.

Forrest said she sent an e-mail to ACLU attorneys in the case to let them know about her work.

They responded they were considering her as an expert witness, she said.

Forrest testified for two days during the six-week trial and wrote two expert reports -- one based on her research of the history of creationism and intelligent design and the other an analysis of the intelligent design high school textbook "Of Pandas and People."

She compared a current edition of the textbook with previous drafts, and showed the word "creationism" in earlier drafts was substituted for "intelligent design" throughout the latest edition.

Her testimony and expert reports are cited throughout the 139-page opinion by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III. He ruled teaching intelligent design as science is unconstitutional because it is based on a religious belief, not scientifically validated studies.

Most scientists say evolution is a fundamental mechanism in biology and has been proven to the extent that it is accepted as a fact.

They deny any controversy exists about evolution itself, as some intelligent-design proponents say.

"Her work and the investigations that she has done has resonated in that opinion," Boston said.

Forrest, who describes herself as a homegrown academic, is a native of Hammond who graduated from Hammond High and earned her bachelor's and master's degrees from Southeastern Louisiana.

The only time she left Hammond to pursue a degree was to attend Tulane University for her doctorate.

She became SLU's first full-time philosophy professor.

"I'm so proud of people to know where I'm from," she said.

When Forrest began teaching part-time at SLU 25 years ago, she never planned to track creationists as part of her academic research.

That effort began when local school boards considered introducing creationism into science curricula.

Forrest joined a group of Southeastern Louisiana University professors who in 1993 protested the Tangipahoa Parish School Board's policy requiring science teachers to read an "evolution disclaimer" that cited the Book of Genesis as an alternative to evolution.

The disclaimer was the subject of a lawsuit against the Tangipahoa Parish School Board.

A federal judge struck down the disclaimer in 1997, and that ruling was upheld on appeal.

In 1995, Forrest faced a similar, and more personally pressing, situation in her sons' schools in Livingston Parish. The Livingston Parish School Board was considering adopting a science curriculum guide that included creationism.

Forrest said that while she was the only parent who protested, she was joined by a "van load" of LSU scientists in explaining to the School Board the folly of the idea.

The board eventually rejected the new curriculum guide.

"It was the first time I encountered the term 'intelligent design,' " she said.

Her crusade in Livingston Parish armed her with the knowledge and contacts in academia that led to her involvement in another skirmish -- the successful push by Baylor University faculty to shutter a center established at the school without their knowledge to study intelligent design.

Forrest said she was shocked when Baylor established the Michael Polanyi Center in 2000.

She said the center was an attempt by creationists to legitimize intelligent design as a competing scientific theory to evolution.

That prompted her to seriously study creationism and the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think tank Forrest says has led the promotion of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.

"I didn't set out to write a book," Forrest said. "I just had so much information, it had to be a book."

The Discovery Institute, which did not respond Monday to a request for comment, has called Forrest a liar.

In numerous articles posted on its Web site, the institute denies Forrest's assertion that its work is creationism disguised as intelligent design.

Despite the federal court ruling in Pennsylvania, the debate on intelligent design is almost certainly far from over. The decision only affects one Pennsylvania federal district, and the case is not expected to be appealed.

Forrest said the opinion will be used as a blueprint for other judges when similar cases are filed.

Boston said Forrest is likely to be called as an expert witness again.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have quoted Dr. Forrest more than once in the past. In fact, I once used as my signature:

For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." ​

from her excellent Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection (2000). The article is well worth reading, and I'm pleased to see her getting some recognition.