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

[marcus]

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

 

[rachmaninoff]

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.

 

[rachmaninoff]

A bit of a thrilling read, really, despite the ridiculously huge font. Here's the meat of it:

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, anyone of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

 

[marcus]

First three links don't work.
..

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

 

[Pengwuino]

It's a 139-page ruling, in the same way that some English majors write 139-page papers: 16-point font, double spaced.

Are you trying to call me an english major? :grumpy:

 

[Blahness]

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. >_>

 

[Sprinter]

Teaching Creationism in Schools

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8493"
Do you agree with the judge?

 

[Pengwuino]

Yes, and i hear his ruling was very well written :P

 

[Moonbear]

Sprinter, I just merged your thread with Marcus', since they are on the same topic.

 

[Sprinter]

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.

 

[Wishbone]

well its a good thing no one is debating wether creationism should be taught in public schools... However the question is whether a philisophical argument 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.

 

[Sprinter]

Philosophical context is ok, for example, before big bang what was it?

 

[rachmaninoff]

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.

Eh?

 

[Astronuc]

We need to get Judge John Jones on the Supreme Court!

 

[Vast]

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!

 

[rachmaninoff]

We need to get Judge John Jones on the Supreme Court!

Seconded!

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!

LOL, talking about hidden intents...

 

[Wishbone]

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.

 

[Astronuc]

that judge is an idiot.

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.

now even the mention of God in the classrom has wannabe scientists pouting.

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).

 

[Wishbone]

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. 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.

philisophical ideas that are a complement science could be mentioned in a course. The judge, wouldn't 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.

 

[Evo]

It is a viable philisophical/scientific idea,

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!

 

[Astronuc]

philisophical ideas that are a complement science could be mentioned in a course. The judge, wouldn't 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.

However, ID was not presented as a "philosophical complement", it was presented as a 'scientific' alternative, which it is NOT! And the ID proponents attempted to discredit the scientific method.

Judge Jones unmasked ID for what is - a religious dogma!

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Dance, Dance, Everybody Look At Your Pants! Well done Judge Jones. A victory for science - about time.

 

[James R]

Wishbone:

now even the mention of God in the classrom has wannabe scientists pouting.

You'll note that the theory of Intelligent Design doesn't mention God. IDers go to great efforts never to mention God explicitly. Do you know why?

 

[pattylou]

You'll all enjoy last April first's editorial comment in Scientific American. It seems appropriate to this thread.

Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000E555C-4387-1237-81CB83414B7FFE9F

 

[Evo]

Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.

Thanks pattylou! :rofl: That was a great way to end my day.