My post was in response to a claim that the school board listened to science experts. They did not. In fact, they even ignored those people whose knowledge of science was the reason they were hired.
No. ID is not science and doesn’t belong in a science class. Have you read any of the transcripts or the judgement? If not, take some time and do so. You will find out why the judge ruled as he did.
They would be wrong.
So the only test for his conservatism is, in your view, that he supports and rules for the defense. I suppose you haven’t read the ruling, since I’ll assume you to be a person of good conscience, and you couldn’t possibly support a defense that willingly made evasive, misleading, and false statements under oath throughout the trial. The former school board members (mainly the 2 involved in bullying the others to change the curriculum) all admitted that they really didn’t understand ID or evolution, but they voted to change the curriculum nonetheless. Is this what you’re in favor of? The actions of these people were dispicable. The judge ruled rightly, the only possible way he could have. Please read the ruling, at least the “conclusion” section on the last 2 pages. This is not a “conservative” or “liberal” issue.
…and he is counting on no one else reading it, either. In the ruling are detailed accounts of Behe and Minnich’s testimony, and how all of their arguments and examples were thoroughly rebutted by scientists. Those attached to Behe’s arguments ought to avail themselves of the modern criticism of his examples so as not to suffer the same fate he did on the stand.
The ruling indicates that the school board received “contrary and unwelcome” advice from many scientific experts, as well as their own teachers, as to the change in curriculum. The judge did not render an unadvised opinion, but listed many sources who testified as the right authorities of scientific theories. He reported the overwhelming consensus of scientific experts. As much as you wish to make this a rogue action of a judge with some agenda you don’t support, you are utterly wrong. Read the ruling.
I think you misunderstand me. I’m not referring to Dover, I’m referring to the matter in general. If what matters hinges on the school board not listening to the science experts, what if they hire some science experts that say ID is fit enough to put in the curriculm? If what matters hinges on the members of the school board being voted in and what they support, what if the distric votes in members who are in favor of ID?
Then you shouldn’t have quoted my response because I WAS specifically addressing Dover.
If a school board finds a science expert that backs ID, it better not be the guys used in the Dover case or else they will lose again in court.
The reason the school board was defeated in the election is because they pushed their personal agenda and ignored the will of the people in the district. That should be pretty easy to understand.
They will still lose a court battle, at least until the Supreme Court decides religion can be taught in science class.
It really doesn’t matter if they are wrong, when it comes to how people will proceed regarding this issue. I could say the Lutherans are a bunch of heratics, do you actually think they are going to say, “hey you know what he’s right, we ought to go back to Catholism.” If anything I’ll probably drive alot them farther away from coming back.
Excellent, then I see in gereneral your first two questions posed in post #73 are irrelavent.
I agree that that is what they think but I believe that they are wrong. As someone who understands school curriculum, it is always up to those who support having something in the curriculum to prove why it should be there.
Only to you. They were relevant to the point being discussed.
As I also wrote, it doesn’t matter what the school board votes for. It is not legal to teach ID in science class in the US at the current time. You can disagree with me all you want, but those school boards that do vote to allow ID in science classes might as well just get out their checkbooks because there will be a large legal bill after they pay for their defense as well as plaintifs costs when they lose the inevitible court challenge.
It has not been dismissed just because it is religion. It has no unifying or explanatory effect.The ID idea is being dismissed as religion.
Cool!
There’s no racist element in Intelligent Design. People of various races are equal (with some genetic variances, of course) from a biological standpoint. How would a theory on the origin of species that says design was involved be any more racist than a theory that believes in pure evolution?
rlg94086 said:
See there really may or not be a racial componet to it all, but really how they react to the whole issue is going to be how they feel is how they will react. You have to understand that a lot of these people are feeling insecure about what seems like the schools being stacked against religion. Then you add on top of that people misunderstand their understanding of their religion, much like they misunderstand the academics and scientist understanding of school curriculum. Add that mix together and bam you get this.
That is 100% FALSE. The policy was to read a small disclaimer before the first evolution lesson. The disclaimer stated roughly that evolution is not a proven fact, only theory. Also, that some believe in ID. If you want to know more about ID, books are available in the library.
It’s unfortunate that you seem so certain. Please read the ruling. There is a long section describing the history of the “disclaimer” and a thorough dissection of the language used and why it violates the establishment clause. There was also the matter of an additional textbook, “Of Pandas and People”, originally published as a creationist explanation of origins, that was to be required alongside the standard “Biology” text. Your innocuous-sounding assertion about “books are available in the library” is patently and demonstrably false.
Read the ruling. The angry and pointed language used for the defense was well-deserved. How else shall we characterize people who knowingly perjure themselves on the stand and make evasive and misleading testimony? These are not people and a cause to rally around. Their actions were dispicable.
I would be shocked at anyone of good conscience who, being familiar with the case, could sympathize with the defense, Catholic or no. They were in the wrong and got what they deserved.
public schools with the education of their children but condition their trust on the understanding that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the students and his or her family.