Dover verdict is in!

[alfaniner]

If you want good laugh, read the comments from people to Fox news about the decision - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179279,00.html

Guess we know who failed Biology/Chemistry/Physics back in high school.

That's the same link I wanted to post. Unfortunately, rather than make me laugh, it makes me very concerned that there are so many people that think that way (if at all), and that they can vote.

Here's the first one:
“I am a college student at the University of Michigan who is in favor of allowing intelligent design to be taught in schools. As a grade school student in Michigan, I was taught about evolution just like most children. Coming from a religious family, I became confused and started to have doubts about my faith. The things I was learning in school seemed to conflict with the things I learned in church. I even confessed this ‘doubt’ to a priest because I thought it was a sin. I’m not saying we need to teach religion in schools, I’m asking that we not destroy it with schools.” — Wayne

 

[Bronze Dog]

Sorry Wayne, if observable facts make you doubt your faith, your faith must not be strong enough. Or in the wrong direction.

 

[William Parcher]

Unfortunately, rather than make me laugh, it makes me very concerned that there are so many people that think that way (if at all), and that they can vote.

A recent poll puts numbers towards that concern...

(CBS) Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved.

These views are similar to what they were in November 2004 shortly after the presidential election.

God created humans in present form - 51%
Humans evolved, God guided the process - 30%
Humans evolved, God did not guide process - 15%

This shows that 81% of polled Americans believe that either God created humans as is, or that God guided the evolution of humans.

CBS News Poll

 

[Wolverine]

A recent poll puts numbers towards that concern...



This shows that 81% of polled Americans believe that either God created humans as is, or that God guided the evolution of humans.

CBS News Poll

Here are a few more.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Am I the only who sees something odd in the response to the following questions?

"Please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following statement. Darwin's theory of evolution is proven by fossil discoveries."
.

...05 Agree:46% Disagree:48% Unsure:6%
1/04 Agree:43% Disagree:51% Unsure:6%


"Just your opinion: Do you think that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well-supported by evidence, or just one of many theories and one that has not been well-supported by evidence, or don't you know enough about it to say?"
.

11/04 Well Supported35% Not Well-Supported:35% Don't Know Enough:29% No Opinion:1 %
2/01 Well Supported:35% Not Well-Supported:39% Don't Know Enough:25% No Opinion:1 %

Did people suddenly changed their minds between those two questions, or do the respondees really walk around with that much cognitive dissonance?

 

[Checkmite]

81%[/B] of polled Americans believe that either God created humans as is, or that God guided the evolution of humans.

Disturbing? It doesn't disturb me; I've long known that a majority of Americans believe in God. Since, as the judge says in his ruling, evolution does not necessarily preclude the existence of God, I find the attempt by believers to reconcile by attributing the evolutionary process in some wise to God to be an acceptable comprimise. The important thing is that they accept the fact of evolution.

Thus, the poll should instead be interpreted as showing that Americans are split 50/50 on the truth of evolution. Again considering that the vast majority of Americans believe in God, this is a good place for evolution to be. Not the best, mind you, but a good place. There is room for moving forward.

 

[BillHoyt]

Your smug dance is nowhere near as insufferable as mine. I laugh at the pathetic insufferability of your smugazoid dance!

~~ Paul

Girrrrrrrrl! Don't you be smugifying around here. I smug, girl, and you know it. You don't know diddly about "smug." Hnnnh.

I'm too smuggy for my clothes,
too smuggy for my nose...

 

[HeyLeroy]

(snip)
Maybe I went too far when I said that if kids want to believe ID is science and evolution is a conspiracy against them, that's cool with me because the world needs ditchdiggers too and I like getting my fries nice and hot. What do you think?
(snip)

Hahahahaha! Can I use that in a letter to the editor of my local paper? A few months back, they printed a guest column from a biology professor at the local U endorsing TOE. This generated six responses from various fundies, but they didn't print my letter defending it. I'm writing another letter to the Ed, and I'd love to use that line!

 

[pgwenthold]

Here's the first one:
“I am a college student at the University of Michigan who is in favor of allowing intelligent design to be taught in schools. As a grade school student in Michigan, I was taught about evolution just like most children. Coming from a religious family, I became confused and started to have doubts about my faith. The things I was learning in school seemed to conflict with the things I learned in church. I even confessed this ‘doubt’ to a priest because I thought it was a sin. I’m not saying we need to teach religion in schools, I’m asking that we not destroy it with schools.” — Wayne

Actually, this kid should read the judgement. Judge Jones addressed this exact issue.

Schools are not allowed to change their curriculum to protect some students from having to question their religious belief. The state is not in the business of protecting the validity of anyone's religion. They are also not allowed to do something with the purpose of attacking a person's religion, but the first tenant of the Lemon test is to ask whether the activity has a secular purpose. Teaching science certainly does. The purpose of teaching ID is to provide an out for those who don't like science.

In fact, the underlying motivation for the "disclaimer" that "evolution is a theory not a fact" is to imply that students don't have to believe it if it contradicts their religious beliefs. The judge ruled that this is in effect providing special treatment for the religious position.

 

[Psi Baba]

This verdict is wonderful news. At the moment, the only thing I see that is the result of intelligent design is the judge's ruling. Way to go Judge Jones and the people in Dover who brought this case to court. It seems there is intelligent life in Central Pennsylvania after all!

 

[BillHoyt]

For those who wish to peruse the documents themselves:

Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District

Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District Ruling

 

[burrahobbit]

Fantastic!! So happy that I am spending good Euros posting this

Is there no law that schools have to teach correct science (and history, geography etc). From the look of it a school disctric could decide to teach that the earth is flat. Since there is no religious motivation, it could be legal??

 

[drkitten]

Is there no law that schools have to teach correct science (and history, geography etc). From the look of it a school disctric could decide to teach that the earth is flat. Since there is no religious motivation, it could be legal??

It would be argued under a different framework and theory. The 1st Amendement (to the US Constitution) applies to issues of "religous establishment." However, there are also independent issues of "freedom of speech" (also 1st Amendment, but a different clause) that would apply to attempts by the government to control curriculum content, as well as a general protection from "arbitrary and capricious" governmental actions, which teaching the flat-earth theory would certainly qualify under.

 

[BillHoyt]

I've been browsing through Jones' Opinion, as time has allowed, today. It is stunning in its evisceration of both ID's central hoax and the Dover school board's ruse. Step by step, it tears the heart out of the crank ID claims and the "inanity" and "striking ignorance" (Jones' words) of the local school board. It seems to attempt to leave no stone unturned, and examine the case from all angles. While it is 139 pages long, I think it is worth the read. If the strippers don't invade my bed tonight, I'm going to curl up with my dogs and Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ, Document 342.

 

[Jon.]

Disturbing? It doesn't disturb me; I've long known that a majority of Americans believe in God. Since, as the judge says in his ruling, evolution does not necessarily preclude the existence of God, I find the attempt by believers to reconcile by attributing the evolutionary process in some wise to God to be an acceptable comprimise. The important thing is that they accept the fact of evolution.

Thus, the poll should instead be interpreted as showing that Americans are split 50/50 on the truth of evolution. Again considering that the vast majority of Americans believe in God, this is a good place for evolution to be. Not the best, mind you, but a good place. There is room for moving forward.

I wish I could agree with you, but the polling data shows that Americans may be moving backwards. Check out some of the comparative numbers at http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm. On some questions things seem to be getting better, on some they seem to be getting worse. Of course, it could all be within the margin of error of the polls.

ETA: Look at some of these, too: http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm. 59% of Americans think that "Christianity is under attack in the United States today." Absolutely astounding.

 

[Brown]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051222/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate_26

From Yahoo and AP:

"This galvanizes the Christian community," said William Dembski, a leading proponent of the theory and a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think-tank that promotes intelligent design research. "People I'm talking to say we're going to be raising a whole lot more funds now."

Interesting. If ID were scientific, one would think that the ruling would galvanize the scientific community.

And there's this, from CBN and AP (http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/CWN/roundup.asp):

Supporters of "intelligent design" are denouncing yesterday's court ruling in Pennsylvania, calling it an "attack on scientists who happen to believe in God."

So the intelligent designer is the Almighty. Well, that's nice to know. We can drop this pretense that ID is non-religious, then?

And then there's this wonderful bit of laughable hyperbole from someone who undoubtedly thinks that he's overflowing with Christian love, from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...2/21/AR2005122101959.html?nav=rss_education):

"This decision is a poster child for a half-century secularist reign of terror that's coming to a rapid end with Justice Roberts and soon-to-be Justice Alito," said Richard Land, who is president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and is a political ally of White House adviser Karl Rove. "This was an extremely injudicious judge who went way, way beyond his boundaries -- if he had any eyes on advancing up the judicial ladder, he just sawed off the bottom rung."

 

[sackett]

Yesterday I heard a “religious fellow from the Heritage Foundation” on public radio. (I forget his name. Alfred E. Dullwitz? Sounds right.) He spoke his little piece about the Dover PA decision. He sounded sullenly defiant, if I read his tone correctly.

He tried to draw a parallel between ID and the theory of the Big Bang, which was initially resisted by physicists of the 1920s. Eventually, enough evidence accumulated in support of the Big Bang that it became “scientific orthodoxy,” in the sneering phrase this joker used. Then he breathed some defiance of the we’ll-be-back-and-then-youse’ll-be-sorry type. He finished by saying that he was neither a physicist nor a fundie – but someday, someday evidence will prove that ID is true!

He was only mildly disgusting; I could feel chariable, being the winner and all. But it really hacked me that tax-supported National Public Radio felt they had to carry this. ‘S enough to make a libertarian out of a man.

 

[Ed]

Yesterday I heard a “religious fellow from the Heritage Foundation” on public radio. (I forget his name. Alfred E. Dullwitz? Sounds right.) He spoke his little piece about the Dover PA decision. He sounded sullenly defiant, if I read his tone correctly.

He tried to draw a parallel between ID and the theory of the Big Bang, which was initially resisted by physicists of the 1920s. Eventually, enough evidence accumulated in support of the Big Bang that it became “scientific orthodoxy,” in the sneering phrase this joker used. Then he breathed some defiance of the we’ll-be-back-and-then-youse’ll-be-sorry type. He finished by saying that he was neither a physicist nor a fundie – but someday, someday evidence will prove that ID is true!

He was only mildly disgusting; I could feel chariable, being the winner and all. But it really hacked me that tax-supported National Public Radio felt they had to carry this. ‘S enough to make a libertarian out of a man.

Wasn't that Janskey and the cosmic background radiation stuff out of Bell labs? At the predicted wavelength if I recall.

It is a pity that interviewers are so illiterate that they cannot pick up on his crappy example and turn it around Like "so, who is your Janskey?"

 

[BillHoyt]

He was only mildly disgusting; I could feel chariable, being the winner and all. But it really hacked me that tax-supported National Public Radio felt they had to carry this. ‘S enough to make a libertarian out of a man.

Actually, NPR is barely tax-supported anymore. Heritage Foundation commentators and interviewers are generally covered for the sake of balance. As idiotic as they often are, I appreciate hearing what they're up to, as it sometimes prepares me for the next woo wave before it hits the shore.

 

[hammegk]

... However, there are also independent issues of "freedom of speech" (also 1st Amendment, but a different clause) that would apply to attempts by the government to control curriculum content, as well as a general protection from "arbitrary and capricious" governmental actions,

Some say that over the past 50+ years we've been treated to fair number of arbitrary and capricious government actions. See Warren Court, the Great Society programs, Roe v Wade, ad nauseum.

Since you agree with them, of course you don't find them such.

which teaching the flat-earth theory would certainly qualify under.

Think you could prove that in a court of law? It would be silly to suggest teaching that of course, and amenable to scientific analysis and dis-proval.

Keep dreaming if you think that characterizes the opposition.