quote:

---

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- "Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.

Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said.

Several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs, he said.

---

Read it here.

The 139 page decision can be found here.

And it appears as though he ruled fairly broadly too, from page 136:

quote:

---

In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

---

And there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth at the Discovery Institute.

Say goodbye to ID, say hello to "sudden emergence theory", the creationists' next legal strategy.

[ 20 December 2005: Message edited by: Snuckles ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snuckles:
Say goodbye to ID, say hello to "sudden emergence theory", the creationists' next legal strategy.

---

quote:

---

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child...

---

It's not that common in legal judgments to find that even a child would reject an argument....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Briguy:
I fully expect Fox News to complain about activist judges this week.

---

The funny thing is, they addressed this in the decision, on pages 137-138:

quote:

---

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

---

The judge in this case was appointed by Bush in 2002, and with supporters like Rick Santorum he sure doesn't sound like an "activist judge". The 'national public interest law firm' mentioned in the above statement is the Thomas More Law Center, which represented the defendants.

On another note, Rick Santorum sits on the advisory board of the TMLC. Santorum himself has flip-flopped on whether ID should be taught in science classes or not.

Nevertheless, I'm sure this decision will get lumped into O'Reilly's whole bogus "war on Christmas/war on Christianity" bullshit, and he'll use it as an excuse to bash the ACLU (who represented the plaintiffs in this case) and the "secular progressive movement", as he calls it.

[ 20 December 2005: Message edited by: Snuckles ]

quote:

---

Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
I dont understand how ID is religious; it is more of a philosophy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
I dont understand how ID is religious; it is more of a philosophy.

---

quote:

---

In Washington, White House spokesman Scott McClellan repeated Mr. Bush's contention that these decisions should be made locally.

But in a comment aimed at pleasing Mr. Bush's conservative supporters, Mr. McClellan added, "The President has also said that he believes students ought to be exposed to different theories and ideas so that they can fully understand what the debate is about."

---

The best way to do that is make it mandatory for students to read Judge Jones's decision.

[ 21 December 2005: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

I dont understand how ID is religious; it is more of a philosophy.

---

Their "philosophy" is simple: "Someone Intelligent designed the world and everything in it. We can't tell you Who...hint, hint."

In the judgment, the judge points out that "intelligent design" as a movement became a public cause in the United States immediately after the courts ruled that "Creationism" was religion.

The same people who supported creationism went over to intelligent design.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
In the judgment, the judge points out that "intelligent design" as a movement became a public cause in the United States immediately after the courts ruled that "Creationism" was religion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by babblerwannabe:

An agnostic could belive in Intelligent design.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
... an agnostic could not rule out intelligent design.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Transplant:
The smoking gun was the textbook promoted to be used in teaching ID. Interim drafts showed it to be the exact same text used to teach creation science [sic] but with the words inteligent [sic] design substituted.

---

Not only that, but they found a 'missing link' (so to speak) between the words 'creationists' and 'design proponents'. See here.

Draft copies, of what became the pro-ID textbook 'Of Pandas & People', contained the phrase "Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view."

The first edition of 'Of Pandas & People' contained "Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view."

Obviously the publishers of 'Pandas' had some bugs in their word processing software.

Prosecutor seeks perjury evidence

[ 22 December 2005: Message edited by: Snuckles ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
M. Spector--

I wouldn't say that. An agnostic (like me) thinks the existance (or non-existance) of a "supreme being" is unknowable and unprovable. They think it requires as much "faith" to insist that there isn't a "god" as it does to insist that there is. In a nutshell, I don't think I have all the answers, and I don't think anyone else does either.

To me, that's not "futile", that's emminently sensible.

---

Ahh yes, now I remember why I've always considered myself agnostic. Thank you for articulating that.

I believe M.Spector said the same thing with this:

quote:

---

I would regard as more sensible a philosophy that would recognize ID as being incompatible with empirically-based science, and therefore false - at least until some extraordinarily convincing evidence for it is forthcoming.

---

So as an agnostic, one reserves judgement of whether there is a Supreme Being, but as an atheist, we would rule out the possibility completely.....until evidence proves otherwise. The difference I see right now between the two perspectives is this:

People don't/can't live their lives based on calculations of probabilities to several decimal places. Practicality demands that we round off the numbers. I have no problem therefore in saying that the probability of the existence of God, the tooth fairy, or the spaghetti monster is zero and the probability of their non-existence is 100%. And I live my life accordingly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:

There's a very big difference. Instead of living my life in a state of uncertainty about whether there really is a God or a spaghetti monster or a tooth fairy, I choose to live in a state of certainty about their non-existence.

I kind of do this, too. I see no "proof" of the existance of a Supreme Being, so (despite my religious upbringing) I try to live my life as if "I am the Captain of my own ship". Nevertheless, I try not to fall prey to the arrogance that I have it all figured out -- I have heard and seen things from several different faiths (with provable, empirical results) that could not be explained by "rational science". And I think that's following the Aristotlian method very well: I think a certain thing, based on exixting evidence... however, if other evidence becomes available that challenges or questions this viewpoint, I am not opposed to amending my worldview.

People don't/can't live their lives based on calculations of probabilities to several decimal places. Practicality demands that we round off the numbers. I have no problem therefore in saying that the probability of the existence of God, the tooth fairy, or the spaghetti monster is zero and the probability of their non-existence is 100%. And I live my life accordingly.

No, I'd say that is far too "definite" and exclusionary as far as I'm concerned. To be 100 certain means, in effect, I'm no different (in degree, at least) from the most hidebound biblical literalist. I am open to alternate explanations (within reason). ie: I kid about the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" stuff...

Now some people would say that's what agnostics do as well, but I respond that that just strips the word agnostic of any meaning, since the result is indistingushable from "hard" atheism.

No, it doesn't. I have addressed that point above. It is only your definition of "agnostic" (from the atheistic point of view) that seeks to cast it in that mold.

---

[ 22 December 2005: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

I accept that definition.

My own view is that I can rule out ID, God, the tooth fairy, the spaghetti monster, leprechauns, and Santa Claus. So I don't consider myself an agnostic.

It doesn't mean I'm not open to alternative explanations if there's cogent and compelling proof. But so far, there isn't. And I'm not waiting around for it.

So I can safely rule out the existence of those entities. My mind is made up. I can be as certain about their non-existence as I can be that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, which is about as certain as anyone can be about anything - even though that certainty could be removed by news that the sun had suddenly gone dark or that the Earth would stop rotating before dawn tomorrow. That's certainty enough for me to live my life accordingly with complete confidence.

agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known, or can be known, of the existence or nature of God or anything beyond material phenomena.

atheism: the theory or belief that God does not exist (and there's a picture of M.Spector by the word )

Evolution named 2005's top scientific breakthrough

Reuters - Two days after a U.S. judge struck down the teaching of intelligent design theory in a Pennsylvania public school, the journal Science on Thursday proclaimed evolution the breakthrough of 2005.

Wide-ranging research published this year, including a study that showed a mere 4 percent difference between human and chimpanzee DNA, built on Charles Darwin's landmark 1859 work "The Origin of Species" and the idea of natural selection, the journal's editors wrote.

"Amid this outpouring of results, 2005 stands out as a banner year for uncovering the intricacies of how evolution actually proceeds," they wrote. "Ironically, also this year, some segments of American society fought to dilute the teaching of even the basic facts of evolution."

The journal's editor in chief, Don Kennedy, acknowledged this was a reference to the rise of the theory of intelligent design, which holds that some aspects of nature are so complex that they must be the work of an unnamed creator rather than the result of random natural selection, as Darwin argued. ...

[ 23 December 2005: Message edited by: Transplant ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Maritimesea:

So as an agnostic, one reserves judgement of whether there is a Supreme Being, but as an atheist, we would rule out the possibility completely.....until evidence proves otherwise.

---

Well . . . more or less, yeah. I mean, ultimately almost everyone who isn't a total fanatic is agnostic a little bit. Most moderately religious people will admit to having moments of doubt.

Similarly, I would consider myself an atheist--but that's, like, for practical purposes. Sure, I'm willing to agree that most religious faiths are *possible* (not all--I'd rule out ones containing violent, fundamental logical contradictions), so that might technically make me an agnostic. But *for practical purposes*, I feel that the likelihood is tiny enough to be not worth paying much attention to, especially for the case of any given faith as opposed to the general notion that some kind of supernatural deity-ish thingies exist. Similarly, I can't *absolutely rule out* solipsism, but I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over it. For practical purposes, I'll accept the notion that consensus reality exists and so do other people. So for practical purposes I'm an atheist. I don't think I should have to be fundamentalist about it to qualify. Otherwise, the category mostly collapses and everyone's an agnostic except some fundamentalist religious loonies and a very few really annoying hard-line atheists who think they're rational but aren't really.

Whoops, noticed that this has been worked out already. I should note that I would consider M. Spector a slightly more emphatic version of my stance, not an "annoying hard-line atheist". Like me, he agrees that there is theoretically a tiny chance of various theistic beliefs being true, but feels that for practical purposes the chance isn't worth worrying about. He rounds the chance to zero, but doesn't claim that it actually *is* zero, just that it's close enough.

[ 23 December 2005: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
Ok fine. But my point was that one can believe in higher power without being religious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:

If one believes in a higher power, what is one if not religious?

---

A péquiste.

quote:

---

Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
Ok fine. But my point was that one can believe in higher power without being religious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
..I haven't verified that I have a genuine copy yet...

---

quote:

---

the indiscriminate use of the term"intelligent", as in military intelligence

---

Here is a useful summary of the decision, for those wishing to study it in detail.

quote:

---

Weighing in at 139 pages, Judge Jones’ ruling is a formidable document. Despite its length and its occasional descent into Legalese, it makes for surprisingly fast-paced and stimulating reading. I recommend reading the whole thing.

Nonetheless, my intention in this essay is to provide a condensed version of all the major points and arguments it contains. The decision will no doubt be the focus of much commentary in the weeks to come, much of it by partisans trying to spin its contents for purposes of their own. Assessing the merits of such commentary will be easier armed with a firm grasp of precisely what it says.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Back on topic...

---

quote:

---

Some people want to think of humans as the product of a special creation, separate from other living things. I am not among them; I am glad it is not so. I am proud to be part of the riot of nature, to know that the same forces that produced me also produced bees, giant ferns and microbes that live at the bottom of the sea.

For me, the knowledge that we evolved is a source of solace and hope. I find it a relief that plagues and cancers and wasp larvae that eat caterpillars alive are the result of the impartial - and comprehensible - forces of evolution rather than the caprices of a deity.

---

Board Rescinds 'Intelligent Design' Policy

AP - The Dover school board on Tuesday rescinded its policy of presenting "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution in high school biology classes, two weeks after a federal judge found the concept was religious and not scientific.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
They think it requires as much "faith" to insist that there isn't a "god" as it does to insist that there is. In a nutshell, I don't think I have all the answers, and I don't think anyone else does either.

---

I, too, consider myself agnostic. There may be a distinct and separate entity that is God as others have defined it, there may not. As it has yet to dance naked in front of me and provide some sort of spectacular evidence of Goddishness, so it's all pretty irrelevant to my day-to-day existence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by het heru:

I, too, consider myself agnostic. There may be a distinct and separate entity that is God as others have defined it, there may not. As it has yet to dance naked in front of me and provide some sort of spectacular evidence of Goddishness, so it's all pretty irrelevant to my day-to-day existence.

Atheists, on the other hand, manage to be as rabidly dogmatic as any other religious proponents, and are equally to be avoided when and where possible.

---

Put better then I could.

I love torturing JWs whenever they come to my door (strangly it's been a very long while). Last time they did, I answered in my underwear, with a little theme music playing (O think it was Devinyls "I touch Myself"), and a bottle of Johnny Walker in hand (which I garggled just before answering the door).

quote:

---

Originally posted by het heru:
I, too, consider myself agnostic. There may be a distinct and separate entity that is God as others have defined it, there may not. As it has yet to dance naked in front of me and provide some sort of spectacular evidence of Goddishness, so it's all pretty irrelevant to my day-to-day existence.

Atheists, on the other hand, manage to be as rabidly dogmatic as any other religious proponents, and are equally to be avoided when and where possible.

---

Biologists are beginning to solve the riddles on which intelligent-design advocates have relied

Chicago Tribune - To advocates of intelligent design, the human sperm's tiny tail bears potent evidence that Charles Darwin was wrong--it is, they say, a molecular machine so complex that only God could have produced it.

But biologists now are starting to piece together how such intricate bits of biochemistry evolved. Although the basic research was not meant as a response to intelligent design, it is unraveling the very riddles that proponents said could not be solved.

In contrast, intelligent design advocates admit they still lack any way of using hard evidence to test their theories, which many biologists find revealing. ...

ID adherents say biochemistry actually supports their view. They argue that many tiny mechanisms--the tails of sperm and bacteria, the immune system, blood clotting--are so elaborate they must have been purposely designed.

Yet biologists have made major strides on each of those phenomena since the first ID books were published in the mid-1990s.

Working without the benefit of fossils, experts are using new genome data to study how fish evolved the crucial ability to clot blood. A wave of new research on the evolution of the immune system seemed to stump ID witnesses in the Dover case. And even the once-mysterious sperm's tail now appears related to other cell parts.

NY Times - A majority of members on the Board of Education of Ohio, the first state to single out evolution for "critical analysis" in science classes more than three years ago, are expected on Tuesday to challenge a model biology lesson plan they consider an excuse to teach the tenets of the disputed theory of intelligent design.

A reversal in Ohio would be the most significant in a series of developments signaling a sea change across the country against intelligent design — which posits that life is too complex to be explained by evolution alone — since a federal judge's ruling in December that teaching the theory in the public schools of Dover, Pa., was unconstitutional.

A small rural school district in California last month quickly scuttled plans for a philosophy elective on intelligent design after being challenged by lawyers involved in the Pennsylvania case. Also last month, an Indiana lawmaker who said in November that he would introduce legislation to mandate teaching of intelligent design instead offered a watered-down bill requiring only "accuracy in textbooks." And just last week, two Democrats in Wisconsin proposed a ban on schools' teaching intelligent design as science, the first such proposal in the country.

Utah House Kills Evolution Bill That Would Have Required Schools to Change Science Courses

AP - Public schools won't have to change the way they teach evolution, after the House on Monday gutted, and then killed, a bill that would have required science courses to mention alternative theories.

Senate Bill 96 failed in the House on a 28-46 vote, after a lengthy debate that saw the bill changed twice.

The bill's sponsor, Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, had said it was time to rein in teachers who were teaching that man had descended from apes, and rattling the faith of students. The Senate passed the measure 16-12.

House sponsor Rep. Jim Ferrin, R-Orem, started Monday's debate with a substitute bill, which removed the phrase about teaching the "origins of life." Ferrin said the phrase should come out because current state curricula only includes teaching the origins of species, not human evolution.

Editor & Publisher - A Gallup report released today reveals that more than half of all Americans, rejecting evolution theory and scientific evidence, agree with the statement, "God created man exactly how Bible describes it."

Another 31% says that man did evolve, but "God guided." Only 12% back evolution and say "God had no part."

Gallup summarized it this way: "Surveys repeatedly show that a substantial portion of Americans do not believe that the theory of evolution best explains where life came from." They are "not so quick to agree with the preponderance of scientific evidence."

The report was written by the director of the The Gallup Poll, Frank Newport.

Breaking down the numbers, Gallup finds that Republican backing for what it calls "God created human beings in present form" stands at 57% with Democrats at 44%.

Support for this Bible view rises steadily with age: from 43% for those 18 to 29, to 59% for those 65 and older. It declines steadily with education, dropping from 58% for those with high school degrees to a still-substantial 25% with postgraduate degrees. ...

----

[ 24 March 2006: Message edited by: Transplant ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ex-hippy:
Actually, judging by various physical phenomena such as tangled hoses, tangled coat hangers, human male genetilia etc. Rather than intellegent design I think the Universe arose out of a "stupid design".

---

How about "crazy design"?

ALL HAIL ERIS!

Discordia !

quote:

---

Originally posted by Transplant:
Gallup: More Than Half of Americans Reject Evolution, Back Bible

---

[Damn, I realy hate that phrase]

NY Times - Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375 million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought "missing link" in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land.

In addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils are widely seen by scientists as a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who hold a literal biblical view on the origins and development of life.

Several well-preserved skeletons of the fossil fish were uncovered in sediments of former stream beds in the Canadian Arctic, 600 miles from the North Pole, it is being reported on Thursday in the journal Nature. The skeletons have the fins and scales and other attributes of a giant fish, four to nine feet long.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Actually, the real defeat of the "intelligent design" idea will not come about until judges start requiring the fomentors of such an idea to ride for a day on London Transit.

---