• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dover verdict is in!

It would seem that in order to violate the Establishment Clause something has to be religious. Declaring something "not science" alone would not necessarily make it religion. Pseudoscience is not science, but it isn't necessarily religion. Is teaching "pseudoscience" in public schools a violation of the Establishment Clause?
 
The issue of separating religion and state is trivial, like arresting Al Capone for tax evasion.

The question of importance is simple: Which is correct?
 
William Parcher said:
It would seem that in order to violate the Establishment Clause something has to be religious. Declaring something "not science" alone would not necessarily make it religion. Pseudoscience is not science, but it isn't necessarily religion. Is teaching "pseudoscience" in public schools a violation of the Establishment Clause?
Click to expand...


While it is true that teaching "pseudoscience" in public schools is not a violation of the Establishment Clause, this ruling convincingly established that ID is a religious belief.
 
:) This is a great day. I'm glad that it was this judge who decided the case. It will be difficult for people to claim that it was a liberal who was being an activist judge. Of course tossing out the school board was a good sign.

Maybe we won't become a theocracy.
 
William Parcher said:
It would seem that in order to violate the Establishment Clause something has to be religious. Declaring something "not science" alone would not necessarily make it religion. Pseudoscience is not science, but it isn't necessarily religion. Is teaching "pseudoscience" in public schools a violation of the Establishment Clause?
Click to expand...

No.

If you read the opinion (it's 139 pages, but it's large print and double-spaced, so it's not really that long), you'll find two conclusions:

1. ID is not science, so it has no place in a science class.
2. ID is religion.

It is conclusion number 2 that allowed the ruling against the Dover School Board.

And that conclusion came from the statements of the defendents and their witnesses. Everyone knows that ID is religion, but the judge had to rule on the evidence presented in court, which he did.
 
I'm reading this extensive document at the moment. Tough to find any grey areas in it...

New sig time. :D
 
Can't sleep because I've napped since I got off work with the flu...so I have to join in the pleasing posts on this early gift.

The judge should have dumped some of the defendants in jail, or at least charged them, for perjury, including Behe. That would have been icing on the cake.
One of Behe’s central claims has been that there is no serious scientific work or progress on how complex biochemical systems like the flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system could have evolved, and he testified as much. Plaintiffs’ attorneys, in a Perry Mason-like flourish, pointedly dropped dozens of peer-reviewed books and journal articles about the evolution of such systems in front of him; Behe admitted that he had read virtually none of them. They also questioned him about a paper he had written in 2004, widely regarded by creationists as a peer-reviewed pro-ID paper. That cross examination established that, despite the fact that he and his co-author had essentially rigged the parameters of the simulation to make evolution as unlikely as possible, biochemical systems requiring multiple unselected mutations — the very type of system he claims could not have evolved in a stepwise fashion — could evolve in a relatively short period of time.


...Here was undeniable proof that Pandas had begun as a creationist textbook and, after the Edwards ruling ruled creationism out of schools, the creationists simply changed their terminology, replacing “creation” with “intelligent design” and giving both terms an identical definition. This provided substantial evidence that intelligent design was simply creationism retrofitted to adapt to modern court rulings and would bode well for the plaintiffs’ case.
Click to expand...

As reported in the latest version of the eSkeptic newsletter. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/archives/

The sneaky snakes still want to call ID science? The Emperor is NAKED.
 
Last edited:
Given this insanity, I wonder what if anything he'll say about the decision.

Summary: On CBN's The 700 Club, host Pat Robertson claimed that "the evolutionists worship atheism" and that because "evolution becomes their religion" it is "an establishment of religion contrary to the First Amendment." Robertson went on to suggest that evolution advocates were "fanatics," stating further, "it is a religion, it is a cult. It is cultish religion."
Click to expand...
:faint:
 
What? I'm not an atheist, and the theory of evolution, while obviously not complete in every detail, seems like a pretty good basis to work on to me. I mean, you'd have to be a complete moron not to realise that Darwin was fairly close to on the nail on most of it.

Which as far as I can see has precisely nothing to do with whether or not one believes there is a God. Unless of course the only "God" you can conceive of is one who is only manifest in the supernatural.

Rolfe.
 
Dragon said:
I don't know about Germany or Iceland, but those of us in the UK have absolutely no reason to feel smug about this: - link

I have enjoyed following the Dover trial and the judgement is more than the icing on the cake - I'm with you, tkingdoll, it does feel like "we" won.
Click to expand...

Oh, I wasn't being smug, far from it. There's not even separation between church and state in Iceland, I literally attended classes called "Bible studies" twice a week in school - they were part of the curriculum. Thankfully for me, the fundie dude that taught the class had his faith severely shaken by my constant badgering and he asked that I be excused from the classes, much to my delight :D

It's just that I'm glad I at least never had to deal with Jesus migrating into science, or worry about my kids being taught about the flood alongside actual geology.

Actually, come to think of it, there isn't THAT much difference. I mean, I was taught about the flood and all that crapola, then there was recess, and then I was taught history and maths and such. How is a kid going to separate one from the other?

--- G.
 
Pixy said:
My name is Pixy and I dance the dance of insufferable smugness.
Click to expand...
Your smug dance is nowhere near as insufferable as mine. I laugh at the pathetic insufferability of your smugazoid dance!

~~ Paul
 
Thankfully for me, the fundie dude that taught the class had his faith severely shaken by my constant badgering and he asked that I be excused from the classes, much to my delight :biggrin:
Click to expand...
You should insist on attending that class and first time back challenge him on why he wanted you excused. It couldn't be possible that a mere student could effect the all powerful truth of an omnipotent being?

I have always been very uspet about how these IDers were trying to sneak their crap through the side door. High school science is no place for new, cutting edge ideas (wildly imagining for a moment that ID is science). The front doors of science are always open. Don't be mad at science if your idea can't make it passed the front desk. Don't be mad when the front desk says what you have isn't science. Especially don't try to sneak it through the back door and drop it on unsuspecting school children. That's just wrong. We need to think of the children.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom