Intelligent Design banned in US town...
Discussion
For being unconstitutional.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4545822.st
Hopefully this is the first step to sensible thinking and overthrowing the growing religious bent that the US seems to be heading down.
Phil
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4545822.st
BBC site said:
Intelligent design' teaching ban
A court in the US has ruled against the teaching of "intelligent design" alongside Darwin's theory of evolution.
A group of parents in the Pennsylvania town of Dover had taken the school board to court for demanding biology classes not teach evolution as fact.
The authorities wanted to introduce the idea that Earth's life was too complicated to have evolved on its own.
Judge John Jones ruled the school board had violated the constitutional ban on teaching religion in public schools.
The 11 parents who brought the case argued that teaching intelligent design (ID) was effectively teaching creationism, which is banned.
They complained that ID - which argues life must have been helped to develop by an unseen power - is tantamount to religious education.
The separation of church and state is enshrined in the US constitution.
The school board argued they had sought to improve science education by exposing pupils to alternatives to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
But Judge Jones said he had determined that ID was not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".
In a 139-page written ruling, the judge said: "Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."
He accused school board members of disguising their true motives for introducing the ID policy.
"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom," he said.
He banned any future implementation of the policy in Dover schools.
The case, the first of its kind, sets an important precedent in a country where several states have adopted the teaching of ID, reports the BBC's James Coomerasamy in Washington.
Ironically, he adds, it is a somewhat academic ruling in the Dover area since parents there voted last month to replace the school board members who brought in the policy.
That move provoked US TV evangelist Pat Robertson to warn the town was invoking the wrath of God.
A lawyer for the parents said the ruling was a "real vindication" for those families who challenged the school board.
Hopefully this is the first step to sensible thinking and overthrowing the growing religious bent that the US seems to be heading down.
Phil
s sake alliteration with Js is hopeless
Jaglover said:
Hopefully this is the first step to sensible thinking and overthrowing the growing religious bent that the US seems to be heading down.
Phil
Is the USA exceptional for remaining religious, or is Europe unique in the world for having abandoned religion?
I understand people's efforts to keep religion out of government, but why are we constantly insulted for having private beliefs? The Pat Robertson's of the world are not our norm. I am referring to the average American that, as a majority, are religious(not radical, simply religious). I believe there is a misconception about our average beliefs and what you folks see as "fanatical". I agree with Jaglover.
The US was founded precisely because minority religious groups (mainly from Britain) wanted to practice their religions without interference. The US constitution therefore insists on being a-religious so as not to favour one religion over another. I find it ironic therefore that religion flourishes quite well in many places in the US where it is on a seemingly continuouos decline in Europe.
If teaching the possibilty of intelligent design is considered religious education, then equally you must conclude that teaching only evolution, and presenting it as undisputed fact, is indoctrinating children into religious atheism. wouldn't it be a better option to allow the teaching of a variety of different theories, along with the evidence commonly used to support them, and allow people to make up their own minds?
this is just another step in overbearing, nanny-state political correctness.
this is just another step in overbearing, nanny-state political correctness.
Jaglover said:
Hopefully this is the first step to sensible thinking and overthrowing the growing religious bent that the US seems to be heading down.
Phil
Is the USA exceptional for remaining religious, or is Europe unique in the world for having abandoned religion?
interestingly, the places where religion (and christianity in particular) is growing fastest are the third world countries. probably partly through people seeing the actions of missionaries, aid organisations etc, and also I think because they don't have a materialistic consumer culture where you can buy anything you want (which will alegedly make you happy), people consider that they need God a lot more, because they don't have anything else.
BBC in erroneous fact shocker:
The seperation of Church and State is NOT enshrined (whatever they mean by that) in the US Constitution. The subject was not touched until the development of the "Bill of Rights" which were the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, and even then, the verbiage is obtuse at best. It is contained in the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
All it says is that the government cannot create a State religion nor can it prohibit people from exercising their religious freedom. It then blathers on about freedoms of speech, assembly and petition.
You would think that, considering it IS the BBC and considering that the US Constitution is not that large of a document, and finally that the complete text is available at a moment's notice via your average web browser, that the BBC would get it's facts straight.
ErnestM
The seperation of Church and State is NOT enshrined (whatever they mean by that) in the US Constitution. The subject was not touched until the development of the "Bill of Rights" which were the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, and even then, the verbiage is obtuse at best. It is contained in the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
All it says is that the government cannot create a State religion nor can it prohibit people from exercising their religious freedom. It then blathers on about freedoms of speech, assembly and petition.
You would think that, considering it IS the BBC and considering that the US Constitution is not that large of a document, and finally that the complete text is available at a moment's notice via your average web browser, that the BBC would get it's facts straight.
ErnestM
Eric Mc said:
The US was founded precisely because minority religious groups (mainly from Britain) wanted to practice their religions without interference. The US constitution therefore insists on being a-religious so as not to favour one religion over another. I find it ironic therefore that religion flourishes quite well in many places in the US where it is on a seemingly continuouos decline in Europe.
Good points. To be exact, the constitution states that the government shall not endorse a "particular" religion, thus allowing all. The UK named the "Church of England" as the official religion, thus, giving it higher status. The US simply does not have an official religion; that's all that means! UNFORTUNATELY....some people use this passage of the constitution in an attempt to effectively BAN all religions. Again, hidden agendas disguised as something else. PS - I missed ErnestM's post. As you see, we have the same conclusion.
>> Edited by jimbeaux on Wednesday 21st December 02:03
Am I hallucinating or didn't this all kick off over a month ago anyway. I'm sure I was subjected to rabid Robertson's rant on the '700 Club' re. Dover PA a while back. Or have I been living in a strange Midwestern timewarp? Hang on, come to think of it, it is looking very 80s around here....
Highway Star said:
Am I hallucinating or didn't this all kick off over a month ago anyway. I'm sure I was subjected to rabid Robertson's rant on the '700 Club' re. Dover PA a while back. Or have I been living in a strange Midwestern timewarp? Hang on, come to think of it, it is looking very 80s around here....
Isn't it always the 80's around there? Just be on the lookout for a bloke dancing in a barn and a nice looking girl with red cowboy boots that likes him. Her Dad will be the one who wants to ban dancing...
ErnestM
ErnestM said:
Am I hallucinating or didn't this all kick off over a month ago anyway. I'm sure I was subjected to rabid Robertson's rant on the '700 Club' re. Dover PA a while back. Or have I been living in a strange Midwestern timewarp? Hang on, come to think of it, it is looking very 80s around here....
Isn't it always the 80's around there? Just be on the lookout for a bloke dancing in a barn and a nice looking girl with red cowboy boots that likes him. Her Dad will be the one who wants to ban dancing...
ErnestM
Sorry Ernest, I haven't got the foggiest, old chap. Just off to fire up the ole I-ROC and cruise on to '99 Luftballoons'.
It is permanently the 80s around here, and IMO, all the bloody better for it. The music is better for a start....
jimbeaux said:
I understand people's efforts to keep religion out of government, but why are we constantly insulted for having private beliefs? The Pat Robertson's of the world are not our norm. I am referring to the average American that, as a majority, are religious(not radical, simply religious). I believe there is a misconception about our average beliefs and what you folks see as "fanatical". I agree with Jaglover.
Sorry I guess this is aimed at me a little, I wrote the thread in a bit of a hurry last night and should have chosen my words a little better.
I am a big fan of all things American, however I do have a growing concern about the strength of religious language that is being used by some US politicians and I have a general feeling (correct or not) that the popoluation is becoming more and more fervent in its religious beliefs.
This is not for me a problem in itself, however when it is coupled with America's unique place in the world, it does leave a few questions in my mind about how the actions of the States is viewed by those in the countries it is trying to assist. I also think it gives more ammunition to Bin Laden and his like when trying to recruit more nutters, but I do understand that whatever the West does will be wrong to him and his!
Finally I'd like to apologise if you felt aggrieved by the post.
Cheers
Phil
GravelBen said:
If teaching the possibilty of intelligent design is considered religious education, then equally you must conclude that teaching only evolution, and presenting it as undisputed fact, is indoctrinating children into religious atheism. wouldn't it be a better option to allow the teaching of a variety of different theories, along with the evidence commonly used to support them, and allow people to make up their own minds?
this is just another step in overbearing, nanny-state political correctness.
That'd be a valid point if ID was in any way a scientific theory.
It's not; it's creationism with bigger words, and belongs in RE, not science, classes.
Which, I believe, is the entire point of the judgement.
Quite right. Scientism belongs in science classes. Religion belongs in religion classes. An examination and comparison of the origination of both scientific and religious theories belongs in Philosophy classes. Except they don't run Philosophy classes in grade school.
As recent research has shown, there is a lot more to inheritance than genetics and natural selection. Lamarckian inheritance characteristics are being noticed which have no easy causal explanation. This doesn't argue for or against Darwinian or Creationist viewpoints, but the fact that these complexities do not fit into the current scientific or religious models should indicate a need for less entrenched thinking on both sides of the debate.
As recent research has shown, there is a lot more to inheritance than genetics and natural selection. Lamarckian inheritance characteristics are being noticed which have no easy causal explanation. This doesn't argue for or against Darwinian or Creationist viewpoints, but the fact that these complexities do not fit into the current scientific or religious models should indicate a need for less entrenched thinking on both sides of the debate.
I think it is particularly suitable for science class. The study of science is not to blindly believe anything told to you but to look at the world in a way which promotes understanding of nature.
That includes evolution and creationalism. Two dissimilar theories both worthy of thought, and for that matter any other theory the teacher wants to throw at you. To rule out a theory on the basis someone else is telling you to is more antiscience that considering it. Science class is not about fact learning, its about learning how to learn. Its the ability to ignore how impressed you are with the person telling you, and seperating what is fact from feeling.
My son is 6. He came home from school last night and said Dad, the vicar at school today told us that once there was a little child called jesus, he was looking forward to his birthday on christmas day, and his parents send him to his bedroom so they could prepare a surprise for him. Jesus heard the sounds of a his friends arriving and a party taking place and stayed in his room for hours as his parents had asked. Then he went downstairs only to find all his friends had left and the cake had been eaten and that his parents had forgotten to get him down from his room so he missed his party.
Now thats silly dad isn't it because no parent would forget to call their child down for blowing out the candles.
Yes son I said, but inside I was nearly crying with pride.
That includes evolution and creationalism. Two dissimilar theories both worthy of thought, and for that matter any other theory the teacher wants to throw at you. To rule out a theory on the basis someone else is telling you to is more antiscience that considering it. Science class is not about fact learning, its about learning how to learn. Its the ability to ignore how impressed you are with the person telling you, and seperating what is fact from feeling.
My son is 6. He came home from school last night and said Dad, the vicar at school today told us that once there was a little child called jesus, he was looking forward to his birthday on christmas day, and his parents send him to his bedroom so they could prepare a surprise for him. Jesus heard the sounds of a his friends arriving and a party taking place and stayed in his room for hours as his parents had asked. Then he went downstairs only to find all his friends had left and the cake had been eaten and that his parents had forgotten to get him down from his room so he missed his party.
Now thats silly dad isn't it because no parent would forget to call their child down for blowing out the candles.
Yes son I said, but inside I was nearly crying with pride.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff