Intelligent Design can not be taught in Pa. schools

Hooray! A victory for science and the First Amendment.

I'm reading over the 139 page opinion issued by the judge... it's pretty interesting.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmiller.pdf

Summarizing what the judge says:

The insertion of "Intelligent Design" wording can not be separated from the movement or the organizations that sought to place it there. The leaders of those groups are avowed Christians who developed a public "wedge strategy" to get it placed in public school science classes once Creationism was rejected by Edwards v. Aguillard. In the context of that history an objective observer would always see the wording as an endorsement of a religious position. "Intelligent Design" is merely a new label for "Creationism", as attested to by the movement's own documents. As such, Edwards v. Aguillard applies, and the wording is unconstitutional.

The judge notes that the testimony submitted by Michael Behe, PhD and "scientist" for the ID defense was "that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God." As the Court could not find evidence that any other scientific proposition revolves around the validity of God the ID proposition is a religious rather than a scientific one.

The judge noted that one of the goals of the "Wedge Document" is to defeat materialism and to replace current science with "theistic and Christian science."

The judge noted that directing students to the ID book Of Pandas and People constituted an endorsement of its religious message.

The judge says that the wording of the Dover ID disclaimer was a "strong" endorsement of religion, because it says that it teaches evolution because it is required by Pennsylvania academic standards, but makes no similar qualifier for why ID should be taught. No other area of science teaching was burdened with such a qualifier.

The judge says that the ID disclaimer incorrectly labels "Darwin's view" as an explanation of the origins of life, and that citing it as an alternative to Intelligent Design is dishonest.

The judge says that the school board's feature of allowing students to "opt out" of the disclaimer if they felt it was a religious message does not protect the student from the message, itself, because he has to know what it contains in order to make an intelligent choice on whether or not it's unacceptable. It also imbues the ID disclaimer with an unentitled degree of importance. The "opt out" feature also sends a clear message to those who would opt out that they are outsiders and not full members of the political community.

The judge says that ID would violate the Lemon test, as it has no secular purpose, its primary effect is to advance religion, and is an undue entanglement.

The judge says that the ID defendants on the school board presented zero evidence that they were motived by any valid secular purpose.

The judge says that school board members blindly adopted standards proferred by religionists while paying little heed to scientists and academicians.

The judge admonishes the defendants for attempting unceasingly to distance themselves from their own actions, and presenting untruthful testimony, and remarks that such dishonesty constitutes additional strong evidence that they had no secular purpose under the Lemon test.

The judge says that any asserted secular purposes by the Board are a "sham."

The judge says that the Board's frequent flagrant insulting falsehoods provided strong evidence that they were equally insincere in adopting ID for secular purposes.

The judge preemptively defends himself from being called "activist" by noting that his is not an activist court, but one that follows the law, and that it was the School Board who were activist in their attempts to inject religion into the classroom.

 

Somewhere, Pat Roberton is having a heart attack.

I like (not really) what he said about Dover when they voted a similar policy: 'If a natural disaster strikes Dover, don't ask for God's help because you have voted him out of your schools.'

He's such a tool. Almost as big a one as his disciples.

 

Well, Pat Robertson certainly didn't help the School Board.

 

I'm just amazed that someone would read a 139 page decision on intelligent design.

 

Since you embrace a p-Resident who doesn't read, I'm not surprised you'd be amazed at someone who does.

 

Does p-Resident stand for "Proper Resident" of the White House? Just curious.

 

But, he is not an activist judge. And if you believe that I........

There is no way he gets away with his personal attack of these ELECTED officials. Stand by for an appeal to the US Supreme Court.

 

Below is the letter that was sent to parents before the class was to discuss the subject. Read it and tell me what you think. I wish they were required to do this before teaching evolution. Hell, they weren't even going to test the students on ID. This was an effort to at least be fair. The ELECTED members of the board felt it was their duty to provide this to the children. As one of them stated, ID/creationism does not teach Christianity. It simply states that evolution is an unproven theory and attempts to offer another theory.

http://www.dover.k12.pa.us/doversd/lib/doversd/_shared/Letter%20to%20Parents%20about%20Biology%20Curriculum--011005.pdf

 

The fight isn't dead. For one, PA parents will try and get theirs into the Supreme Court. And second, just like with the marriage amendment voted in by a large majority of the states, this idea is spreading.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9967813/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9995564/

 

Oh Salty, why did you have to burst FAB's bubble like that.:grin:
Merry Christmas Rex!:thumb: