"We have concluded that it is not [science], and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," Jones writes in his 139-page opinion posted on the court's Web site.
"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," Jones writes.
The fact that the court even accepted the case is wrong.
What is taught in schools is not at the mercy of governmental precedence. Just the idea that the Supreme Court can decide what does and does not get taught in schools runs counter to the ideals of the constitution.
Just because we as people can't reach a consensus doesn't mean that we should ask the courts or government to step in and decide what we "get to" teach in our schools.
Just out of curiousity, is a school board required to consider a topic if requested by a parent? The reason I ask is that I recently got an email from a nearby school asking for advice on handling their own ID considerations. The email stated that the science curriculum was being reviewed because a parent had demanded that ID be added.
Is this always how these things work? If one person says, "I think we should stop serving hotdogs for school lunch" then does the school board automatically has to discuss it?
Just out of curiousity, is a school board required to consider a topic if requested by a parent? The reason I ask is that I recently got an email from a nearby school asking for advice on handling their own ID considerations. The email stated that the science curriculum was being reviewed because a parent had demanded that ID be added.
Is this always how these things work? If one person says, "I think we should stop serving hotdogs for school lunch" then does the school board automatically has to discuss it?
Doesn't work quite like that...
Any random request by parents won't get that kind of consideration. The problem is that the ID movement has bamboozled schoolboards all across the country into believing that legitimate debate exists within the scientific community about ID and evolution.
Just out of curiousity, is a school board required to consider a topic if requested by a parent? The reason I ask is that I recently got an email from a nearby school asking for advice on handling their own ID considerations. The email stated that the science curriculum was being reviewed because a parent had demanded that ID be added.
Is this always how these things work? If one person says, "I think we should stop serving hotdogs for school lunch" then does the school board automatically has to discuss it?
Hot dogs would be one thing, if the parent has concerns with a healthy diet at school then they can voice their opinion. I’ve read that there are schools who have removed vending machines and junk food from the cafeterias.
However they cannot for example contact the school and say, during Math class don’t teach them algebra as we don’t believe in it.
GONNAFISTYA wrote:You people have rejected God with your liberal, heathen ways and have embraced the black magic of science and objective thought.
Death unto you all...you will burn for your transgressions. All of you will burn.
I hope this is sarcasm.
Fear thee not yon wayward sheep.
For the Lord has not forsaken you. Repent now. Redeem yourself in His presence and forego this pagan belief that God must explain himself through science.
He is the Almighty. The Creator of all.
Humans created science...the bane of us all. For what has science given us besides a space shuttle that doesn't go anywhere?
I won’t argue you because I have a feeling you are being sarcastic, but because you are a Simpsons fans I will refrence this.
Ned: Science is like a blabber mouth who ruins a movie by
telling you how it ends. Well I say that there are some thing
we don't wanna know. Important things!
[everyone backs him up]
Agnes: Enough talk, it's smashing time!
-- A well-thought-out plan, "Lisa the Skeptic"
% First stop: the Museum of natural history. The gang runs in and batter
% a Tyrannasaurous skeleton to the floor. Then they smash down the
% observatory. Meanwhile Moe is clubbing a mammoth. The tusk falls off,
% landing on top of him.
Oh, I'm paralised, I just hope medical science can cure me!
-- Moe, part of a Science-destroying mob, "Lisa the Skeptic"
BlueGene wrote:I won’t argue you because I have a feeling you are being sarcastic, but because you are a Simpsons fans I will refrence this.
Ned: Science is like a blabber mouth who ruins a movie by
telling you how it ends. Well I say that there are some thing
we don't wanna know. Important things!
[everyone backs him up]
Agnes: Enough talk, it's smashing time!
-- A well-thought-out plan, "Lisa the Skeptic"
% First stop: the Museum of natural history. The gang runs in and batter
% a Tyrannasaurous skeleton to the floor. Then they smash down the
% observatory. Meanwhile Moe is clubbing a mammoth. The tusk falls off,
% landing on top of him.
Oh, I'm paralised, I just hope medical science can cure me!
-- Moe, part of a Science-destroying mob, "Lisa the Skeptic"
Blah. Quoting the Simpsons. The last resort of the liberal elite.
You do of course realize that in God's great plan for all things holy...Lisa Simpson, that tree-huggin hippie, will grow up lonely, bitter and suffering from massive armpit hair.
Do you want this to happen to your children? Think of the monthly lice shampoo bills.
Repent. Repent now, heathen. Embrace me sayeth the Lord.
Last edited by GONNAFISTYA on Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
GONNAFISTYA wrote:
Blah. Quoting the Simpsons. The last resort of the liberal elite.
You do of course realize that in God's great plan for all things holy...Lisa Simpson, that tree-huggin hippie, will grow up lonely, bitter and suffering from massive armpit hair.
Do you want this to happen to your children? Think of the monthly lice shampoo bills.
Repent. Repent now, heathen. Embrace me sayeth the Lord.
R00k wrote:Just the idea that the Supreme Court can decide what does and does not get taught in schools runs counter to the ideals of the constitution.
errrrrrrrrrr....not if what is taught is found to be a blantant infringement on the establishment clause. See Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).
It doesn't look like the particular fact pattern in the present case will ever make it up to the Supreme Court. The old school board was ousted and the new one has no plans to appeal.
Last edited by Hannibal on Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
R00k wrote:The fact that the court even accepted the case is wrong.
What is taught in schools is not at the mercy of governmental precedence. Just the idea that the Supreme Court can decide what does and does not get taught in schools runs counter to the ideals of the constitution.
Just because we as people can't reach a consensus doesn't mean that we should ask the courts or government to step in and decide what we "get to" teach in our schools.
What?
Who's charged with upholding the constitution at the national level?
Your law and government systems are (supposed to be) seperated to facilitate just this level of control.
"Maybe you have some bird ideas. Maybe that’s the best you can do."
― Terry A. Davis
No "Intelligent Design"
"A federal judge has ruled 'intelligent design' cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district," according to the Associated Press. "The Dover Area School Board violated the Constitution when it ordered that its biology curriculum must include 'intelligent design,' the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled Tuesday. The school board policy, adopted in October 2004, was believed to have been the first of its kind in the nation."
In a statement released today by the Cato Institute, Andrew J. Coulson, Cato's director of the Center for Educational Freedom, and Neal McCluskey, a Cato education policy analyst, write: "Today's intelligent design ruling by the U.S. District Court in Harrisburg will be perceived as a victory for supporters of evolutionary theory and a defeat for I.D. advocates and creationists. Such perceptions are shortsighted. The Pennsylvania ruling will do nothing to end the battle over the teaching of human origins that has plagued public schools since the Scopes trial of 1925. It, and all the other cultural and religious 'school wars' that divide our nation, will rage on unless we do something about their root cause: our one-size-fits-all government school system.
"As long as every taxpayer is compelled to fund a single official education system, conflicts over its curricula and methods will persist. But there is an alternative: provide tax relief and scholarships that will put independent schooling within reach of every family in America. By allowing parents to obtain the sort of education they value for their own children, without obliging them to foist it on their neighbors, we can eliminate the root cause of the problem -- and bring peace across the entire education front of our nation's culture war."
In "Why Fight Over Intelligent Design?," Coulson writes, "This manufactured conflict serves no public good. After all, does it really matter if some Americans believe intelligent design is a valid scientific theory while others see it as a Lamb of God in sheep's clothing? Surely not. While there are certainly issues on which consensus is key -- respect for the rule of law and the rights of fellow citizens, tolerance of differing viewpoints, etc. -- the origin of species is not one of them.
"The sad truth is that state-run schooling has created a multitude of similarly pointless battles. Nothing is gained, for instance, by compelling conformity on school prayer, random drug testing, the set of religious holidays that are worth observing, or the most appropriate forms of sex education. Not only are these conflicts unnecessary, they are socially corrosive. Every time we fight over the official government curriculum, it breeds more resentment and animosity within our communities. ... Fortunately, there is a way to end the cycle of educational violence: parental choice. Why not reorganize our schools so that parents can easily get the sort of education they value for their own children without having to force it on their neighbors?"
