Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Text of Judge Jones decision (good style and interesting to read)

  1. Dec 20, 2005 #1

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    Pharyngula has some exerpts from Jones Dover school board decision that impressed me as well and truly written:

    http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/the_bottom_line_in_dover/

    http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/unconstitutional_to_teach_id/

    in case these links are slow (lot of hits on Pharyngula right now) or not working, try this
    http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/
    since the items in question are current or recent and near the top

    here is the text of the actual ruling:
    http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/051220_kitzmiller_342.pdf
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 20, 2005 #2
    First three links don't work.

    For those who might be confused, this thread is referring to the case of "Intelligent Design" in the school district in Dover, Pennsylvania. Its teaching was barred by a federal court, the links are to the text of the judge's ruling.

    NY Times article today

    It's a 139-page ruling, in the same way that some English majors write 139-page papers: 16-point font, double spaced. :rolleyes:
     
  4. Dec 20, 2005 #3
    A bit of a thrilling read, really, despite the ridiculously huge font. Here's the meat of it:
    :cool: :biggrin:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 20, 2005
  5. Dec 20, 2005 #4

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    they work for me

    sometimes it is slow. Today, I think, Pharygula is getting a lot of hits and this means that you just have to wait your turn (and maybe do something else meanwhile) before you get contact.

    maybe they actually do not work at all for you

    Pharyngula already has some other stuff about this so the best for them is the main weblog address

    http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/

    this is also quicker, altho there is some wait there too
     
  6. Dec 20, 2005 #5

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Are you trying to call me an english major? :grumpy:
     
  7. Dec 20, 2005 #6
    Politics and World affairs section, or am I confuzzled?

    Anyway, Why does it matter how well it's written? All that matters is that the ruling isn't complete BS, and you're set. >_>
     
  8. Dec 20, 2005 #7
  9. Dec 20, 2005 #8

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yes, and i hear his ruling was very well written :P
     
  10. Dec 20, 2005 #9

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Sprinter, I just merged your thread with Marcus', since they are on the same topic.
     
  11. Dec 20, 2005 #10
    I think creationism shall be taught in churches, not in school.
    Evolutionary theory can be taught in school because it is purely a science, not a religion, regardless whether it is correct or not. If we want to teach creationism, there are many versions of creation story, the hindusim's one differ from christianity, which one shall we teach?
    It is a matter of FAITH about creationism, so, leave it to church's bible school.
     
  12. Dec 20, 2005 #11
    well its a good thing no one is debating wether creationism should be taught in public schools... However the question is whether a philisophical arguement that is pretty complimentary with science should be mentioned in addition of evolution. I have no problem with teachers mentioning philisophical ideas that go along with science. You find many philisopical issues brought up even in the high science courses, including quantum physics.
     
  13. Dec 20, 2005 #12
    Philosophical context is ok, for example, before big bang what was it?
     
  14. Dec 21, 2005 #13
    Eh? :confused:
     
  15. Dec 21, 2005 #14

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    We need to get Judge John Jones on the Supreme Court!
     
  16. Dec 21, 2005 #15
    This ruling is ridiculous! I’m horrified at what’s happening here. America is losing all its morals and going to hell in a hand basket. The judge is obviouldly a corrupt atheist, with a hidden intend to introduce materialism, what happened to One Nation Under God? We need to fight back people, we need to lead people back to Jesus, and back to the truth before it’s too late.

    We can’t let science win!
     
  17. Dec 21, 2005 #16
    Seconded!

    LOL, talking about hidden intents...
     
  18. Dec 21, 2005 #17
    that judge is an idiot. now even the mention of God in the classrom has wannabe scientists pouting. Thank God he's not on the supreme court.
     
  19. Dec 21, 2005 #18

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Not true. If one reads the judge's reasoned and well-informed opinion, one observes that the judge is not an idiot, but a reasonably well-educated and intelligent person. Judge Jones simply defended Truth and Justice, and the American Way. :biggrin:
    Why would God need to be mentioned in a biology class, or any science class for that matter? Certainly God can be discussed in a course on comparative religion, or perhaps even a literature course, or other humanities course. Religious education, especially that which is based on religious dogma belongs in one's religious institution or home.

    Besides, Judge Jones did not discourage anyone from believing or studying ID. He simply determined that any government or public educational institution may not teach ID or promote ID in the classroom, and this is quite consistent with the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, . . .", which has been extended to the States and other government organizations (implicitly by the due process clause in the 14th amendment).
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2005
  20. Dec 21, 2005 #19
    philisophical ideas that are a complement science could be mentioned in a course. The judge, wouldnt even let in up to the teacher to decide whether it should be mentioned in the cirriculum. It is a viable philisophical/scientific idea, and if the judge took any science courses, he would know that such ideas lend themselves to scientific topics frequently. However if one was to mention intellegent design, not promote it, nor force it on the students, he would not breaking the first admendment, thus the judges ruling was, well, ignorant.
     
  21. Dec 21, 2005 #20

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No, it is not a valid scientific idea, that's the point. ID fails to meet scientific criteria.

    That judge is brilliant, kudos to him!
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Text of Judge Jones decision (good style and interesting to read)
  1. Good Text Based RPG (Replies: 6)

  2. A good read (Replies: 0)

Loading...