Pinellas County Wants Intelligent Design

Not Hardly (0.00 / 0)

Progressives, liberals, scientists, and others who read books other than just passages here and there from the Bible, are not "scared of intelligent design".  If anything, folks are scared that people are uninterested in complying with basic tenets of constitutional law: you know, separation of church and state and all that.

Because unless ID is "science" it cannot (consistent with the U.S. Constitution) be taught in a public school science class.  Surely you do not contend that ID is a science. 

In that connection, I urge you to read the opinion in the eDover case.  There, in a 6 week trial, Federal District Judge Jones  heard the best ID had to offer and, in a lengthy opinion, ruled that ID, is "a religious view" and "a mere re-labeling of creationism." 

Keep in mind that Judge Jones is a Republican AND a George W. Bush appointee.

•  As for the ID proponents, the Bush appointee observed as follows: "The breathtaking inanity of the (school board's) decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop."

• The Republican Judge also found it "ironic that several of these (school board members), 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."

• In his ruling, Bush appointee Jones also said that while intelligent design, or ID, arguments “may be true, a proposition on which the court takes no position, ID is not science.”

• Among other things, the Bush appointed Republican Judge said intelligent design “violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation”; it relies on “flawed and illogical” arguments; and its attacks on evolution “have been refuted by the scientific community.”

While

---

by: Blue @ Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 07:03:17 AM CST

Who said (0.00 / 0)

anything about it being taught in science class?  Any wonder why lieberals and proggies just don't get it.

Stacy Cole

---

by: USAHeartland @ Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 23:11:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not Hardly (Part Deux) (0.00 / 0)

I took it from the original post, and particularly your words that the polling showed people wanted ID "taught in classrooms along with evolution", that that meant in science classes: after all, evolution is taught in science classes.

Now if you want to teach ID in a comparative religion class or, possibly, in a philosophy class, have at it.

---

by: Blue @ Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 14:44:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sure, (0.00 / 0)

so long as evolution is as well. To take the evolution argument a little further, if evolution is indeed true, why are there still apes, monkeys, orangutuans, etc? 

I still think evolution as a theory, because if all animals are still evolving, why have they not completely evolved?  I mean, to play out the string, lets say we are evolved from apes.  Why did only some continue to evolve, and others did not?

So evolution and ID in the same classroom, just not science.


Stacy Cole

---

by: USAHeartland @ Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 11:41:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The answer (0.00 / 0)

"To take the evolution argument a little further, if evolution is indeed true, why are there still apes, monkeys, orangutuans, etc?"

Because the argument is not that we evolved from apes, rather that we all evolved from a common ancestor.

---

by: Mike @ Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 12:06:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Funny thing is, (0.00 / 0)

when evolution is mentioned and portrayed in artists descriptions in school books, the renderings always depicted man evolving from ape.  That was how it was portrayed in schools when I went, and I don't think that it has changed that much.

So, if we are from a common ancestor, who/what is that ancestor?  You can't talk about evolution without having some kind of starting point in the evolutionary line.

Stacy Cole

---

by: USAHeartland @ Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 13:09:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Stacy (0.00 / 0)

That's junk and you should know better.

I'm not going to explain it here. Mostly because I believe debating evolution implies evolution is in debate. It's not.

Science is science.

"ID" belongs in theology class along with virgin births, burning bushes (nice idea by the way) and walking on water.

Honestly, I look forward to the nut-jobs pushing ID in public schools because it will turn out just like Kansas, Pennsylvania and Lake County, Florida: moderates and Democrats will win the elections, the courts will it strike down and the religious fringe will cry and curse until they find someone else to pick on.

Happens every time. To quote the Prez, "Bring it on."

---

by: Derek Newton @ Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 13:49:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]