?

Log in

A judge on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of… - Boredom, in Journal Form [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Albert

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Dec. 20th, 2006|09:23 pm]
Albert
A judge on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania rules in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design in public school science classes in the United States.

thank goodness...

any ideas?
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: nonother
2005-12-21 02:51 am (UTC)
Unfortunately it doesn't actually rule it unconstitutional in all of the United States (yet), at least not until it makes it to the Supreme Court (which will not likely happen). But it's a damn good start.

If anyone can find the ruling (the 139 page version) I'd love to take a look; I couldn't find it.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: showbizgrl
2005-12-21 04:13 am (UTC)
idk... i think different theories should be taught, and the students can decide for themselves which to believe.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: asdf59
2005-12-21 11:49 am (UTC)
They are. We teach two theories: evolution in schools, and creationism in churches. We don't need to teach the theory of bullshit (I mean 'intelligent' design) in schools to add to the confusion. People don't seem to be having any trouble learning about creationist arguments.

Intelligent design is NOT a THEORY. A theory is a scientific argument, based on observations, that has predictive value; that is, a theory allows you to explain current data and make relatively accurate guesses about future data. Creationism isn't a theory; it's a faith-based principle. There's nothing wrong about that, but we don't teach faith-based principles in public school. It's not really on the level of evolution, nor is it on par with any other debatable scientific theory.

Now we have the intelligent design argument. Critics would claim that ID is merely a concealed creationist argument. In this case, its fate should be the same as creationism (limited to being taught by religious institutions and possibly in theology classes). However, one might claim that ID actually has some rational merit, as opposed to the completely faith-based creationism. Assuming this is true, it does have a place in our schools...in PHILOSOPHY classes. Rational arguments aren't science; science doesn't include everything that isn't faith.

Maybe both of these theories should be taught (ID and creationism). If that is the case, we should set aside 2 hours a day to teach theology and philosophy (two legitimate subjects).
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: telecaster59
2005-12-21 11:25 pm (UTC)
To teach creationism in schools, gives creationism (or ID) to much credit.

The idea that there is a clear choice between evolution and creationism is a silly bible-centric opinion. If you choose to reject science you can, but that does not make your opinion scientifically correct.

There is one scientific theory to explain how life got the way it is, and thats evolution. Evolution is a law, and should be treated like all other laws such as "gravity" and "electromagnetism". We do not tell students "ok here is gravity but you don't have to believe that, it might be true that jesus pushes us to the earth.

Why learn creationism and not other religious beliefs about how the world was created. Norse Legends? Greek Legends? Sciencetology? Creationism is at the same level of mythology.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: anita24
2006-12-17 09:20 pm (UTC)
quick albert update before it gets to be a year between posts!!!!!
(Reply) (Thread)