Ruling in Dover ID Case

[bicker]

This is hilariously great timing:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/science_evolution_dc

 

[What the Heck]

re·li·gion (n.)

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.


sci·ence (n.)

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to explaining a limitied class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

Just to stick in my 2 cents, you forgot the 4th item under religion:

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

This comes from Dictionary.com

 

[What the Heck]

This is hilariously great timing:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/science_evolution_dc

A question I have, then, according to the article you quoted, it must be testable. Exactly how do you test evolution? If evolution is true, then the only way it could be tested would be with a test that started thousands of years ago.

I don't know enough about ID to say whether or not it is true, but it does have one advantage over evolution. It has a starting point. With Evolution or with the Big Bang there isn't.

I do wonder why those who are "inclusive" in their thinking are so quick to exclude something else. If something cannot be proven true, then how can it be proven false?

 

[What the Heck]

Except that "creation/ID" is a belief with NO science behind it at all, you may as well teach magic. Evolution can, through the use of DNA, show that we are related, literally, to even the most simple life forms. If we were simply "created" from nothing, why would that DNA relationship exist? No species would share DNA characteristics with another species, each would be a seperate and unique creation.

Why do they have to be exclusive?

Also, the same arguement could be against evolution. Why would the DNA of a fish be so close to a human DNA? It's an entirely different species. If we were simply evolved, after so many generations, why would the DNA be so close? Not as good an argument as yours, but still valid.

 

[DarkSideMoon]

Why can't they just say; ' some people believe that someone/something created the world. ' then it goes on to show eveidence. then the kids can draw their own conclusions instead of being force-fed.

 

[Chuck S]

Why can't they just say; ' some people believe that someone/something created the world. ' then it goes on to show eveidence. then the kids can draw their own conclusions instead of being force-fed.

Then what else "should" they say? Some people believe we are decended from Aliens..some people believe the earth is only 10K years old...some people believe we flew here in ancient space ships, or were a colony from a now extinct race.

The problem with the "some people believe approach" is that some people could believe most anything...why waste class time discussing the thousands of possibilities that have no scientific basis?

 

[DarkSideMoon]

So another widely accepted theory should not be taught in schools? What happened to freedom of choice liberals? you can choose to kill your unborn child but you won't give kids the right to come up with their own theories?

 

[chobie]

So another widely accepted theory should not be taught in schools? What happened to freedom of choice liberals? you can choose to kill your unborn child but you won't give kids the right to come up with their own theories?

Congratulations, you win the prize for the most gratuitous abortion reference of the day!

 

[AnaheimGirl]

A question I have, then, according to the article you quoted, it must be testable. Exactly how do you test evolution? If evolution is true, then the only way it could be tested would be with a test that started thousands of years ago.

I don't know enough about ID to say whether or not it is true, but it does have one advantage over evolution. It has a starting point. With Evolution or with the Big Bang there isn't.

I do wonder why those who are "inclusive" in their thinking are so quick to exclude something else. If something cannot be proven true, then how can it be proven false?

What's the starting point, though? The designer? ID doesn't say where the designer came from. How is that more of a starting point than evolution? And (as I asked before, but no one responded), if the whole basis of ID is that "we" are too complex to have evolved, but must have been designed, how can we say the designer is not too complex to have been designed? Then who designed him? and the designer before him, etc, etc, etc?

As for inclusiveness, I have no problem with ID being taught in a Social Studies or Religion class. As science, though, it's not acceptable because it isn't science.

 

[AnaheimGirl]

So another widely accepted theory should not be taught in schools? What happened to freedom of choice liberals? you can choose to kill your unborn child but you won't give kids the right to come up with their own theories?

It should not be taught as science because it is not science.

In response to the rest: What happened to "family values" conservatives? Do you rely on schools to teach them everything you think they need to know? Why can't you teach your children what you believe about creation? I teach my kids lots of things that aren't taught in school, and my kids believe me because I'm their mom and they love and trust me more than they do their teachers.

 

[DarkSideMoon]

I'm not a parent. Alot of kids will never be exposed to ID because their parents dont believe in it and schools dont teach it.

 

[Laura]

I'm not a parent. Alot of kids will never be exposed to ID because their parents dont believe in it and schools dont teach it.

And they need to be exposed to it?

A question I have, then, according to the article you quoted, it must be testable. Exactly how do you test evolution? If evolution is true, then the only way it could be tested would be with a test that started thousands of years ago.

I don't know enough about ID to say whether or not it is true, but it does have one advantage over evolution. It has a starting point. With Evolution or with the Big Bang there isn't.

I do wonder why those who are "inclusive" in their thinking are so quick to exclude something else. If something cannot be proven true, then how can it be proven false?

The thing is, with scientific theories they aren't really "proven true" but can be proven to be false. (Basically, this allows for new information and new discoveries.) Not so with Intelligent Design; science cannot evaluate it as it can evaluate something scientifically observable like evolution. So far the theory of evolution has held up, with some tweaks.

The aforementioned link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/science_evolution_dc) has this to say:

"It's a hypothesis that's not testable, and one of the important recognition factors for science and scientific ideas is the notion of testability, that you can go out and do an experiment and learn from it and change your idea," said Kennedy. "That's just not possible with a notion that's as much a belief in spirituality as intelligent design is."

 

[chobie]

Part of the reason why the judge struck it down was because the proponents of ID lied in their depostions. Now why would they do that?

 

[chobie]

I'm not a parent. Alot of kids will never be exposed to ID because their parents dont believe in it and schools dont teach it.

And that is probably why people want ID taught in schools --to reach all the heathen's children who are not being indoctrinated at home and in church.

 

[DarkSideMoon]

also know as letting kids choose for themselves......

 

[Laura]

also know as letting kids choose for themselves......

Not when they're being given misinformation about science.

 

[froglady]

also know as letting kids choose for themselves......

So I can assume that you are teaching your children about ALL religions, and their creation stories, so they can choose for themselves? Whether or not YOU believe in them?

Believe it or not, DS (12) has read many ID theories, not only Judeo-Christian ones. You ARE aware that most religions have an ID basis? I think it would be wonderful if all schools spent a semester discussing ALL of them.

 

[DarkSideMoon]

I have no kids, if I did, yes, I would teach them about what others believe. I would tell them what I believe and why, and they can come up with their own conclusions.

 

[bicker]

Exactly how do you test evolution?

Archeaology has provided all the evidence necessary to test the principles of evolution.

I don't know enough about ID to say whether or not it is true, but it does have one advantage over evolution. It has a starting point. With Evolution or with the Big Bang there isn't.

That's like saying that a iPod has an advantage over a car, because it takes up so little space and the music is great. That "advantage" is undeniable, but ignores the fact that the iPod is generally not helpful for getting to and from work, for example. Religion is good for what religion is for: Making us feel better about the unknown aspects of our world. Science is good for what science is for: Helping us understand more about the aspects of our world, making the unknown into known.

I do wonder why those who are "inclusive" in their thinking are so quick to exclude something else. If something cannot be proven true, then how can it be proven false?

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate.

 

[bicker]

So another widely accepted theory should not be taught in schools? What happened to freedom of choice liberals?

There is no "other" "widely-accepted" scientific theory, to be taught in science class. With regard to the "widely-accepted" theory you're referring to, I don't believe it is as widely-accepted as you think, but that's irrelevant: It should be taught in schools, in social studies where they teach about religions of the world. Freedom of choice is a concept that applies when there are choices, not when discussing objective fact. Science isn't about people choosing what will be true; science is about learning what is true.