Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

Keep "intelligent design" concept out of science lessons, US judge rules

Not all is lost in America :)
The concept of "intelligent design" is inherently religious in nature and may not be introduced into high school biology classrooms in a Pennsylvania public school district, a district court judge ruled Tuesday in a sharply-worded and potentially far-reaching decision.

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID [intelligent design] is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory," wrote U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III in a 139-page decision that prompted a flurry of responses on both sides of the bitter intelligent design-evolution divide.
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsdesi1221,0,7733108.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

Thank fuck that for once, common sense has prevailed.

Let's hope other States follow suit.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
«134

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It is a tough one, I am strongly against Church and the State, but I do think there could be interesting questions raised for kids about the Creation.

    Not detailing Creationism next to Evolution, but more getting the kids to think about the begining of time, science has some thoughts but I think it could be a good project for GCSE kids. A mix of physics and philosophy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But ID or even full-blown Creationism can and is already taught in schools- during religion lessons.

    What the judge has ruled is that ID should not be taught in biology/science lessons, because it is a religious concept not a scientific theory.

    But this wasn't enough for the fundies of course, who would like to see the application of their religious beliefs to every possible subject.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A rare good decision this.

    Intellligunt desine is a fucking joke as a scientific theory.

    It's probably true though. :lol:

    Now, if they could just abandon other, irrational beliefs and teach those as religious fruitcakery, I would be happy. :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    But ID or even full-blown Creationism can and is already taught in schools- during religion lessons.

    But it does apply to physics, if you are discussing 'the begining' then God does have to feature, at least as part of the debate.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    At the very most, it might have a place in a philosophy lesson. But certainly not in a science or biology class- because ID is not a scientific theory by any stretch of the imagination.

    Therefore it is entirely innapropriate that a religious belief (because that is what ID is) should be taught in a science/biology class.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    At the very most, it might have a place in a philosophy lesson. But certainly not in a science or biology class- because ID is not a scientific theory by any stretch of the imagination.

    Therefore it is entirely innapropriate that a religious belief (because that is what ID is) should be taught in a science/biology class.

    So the idea of a creator has no part in a debate as to the origin of the universe? Physics and philosophy are linked.

    I find your views just as fundementalist as some more extreme Christian ones.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So the idea of a creator has no part in a debate as to the origin of the universe?

    Science = what can be proven.

    Debate - what can be agreed upon.

    Not usually the same, not by a long chalk.
    Physics and philosophy are linked.

    Mainly because physics (that pesky real world I am always on about) has this remarkable tendency to wipe out belief systems by insisting upon facts.

    I love facts, me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    So the idea of a creator has no part in a debate as to the origin of the universe? Physics and philosophy are linked.

    I find your views just as fundementalist as some more extreme Christian ones.
    You keep missing the point bongbudda. Science and biology lessons are all about... er... scientific theory and evidence.

    ID is not a scientific theory and there isn't even the smallest trace of evidence to support it- despite what some might claim (though they only claim it so they can sneak into parts of the curriculum where they most definitely don't belong). ID is simply a religious belief... and as such it has no place whatsoever in science and biology lessons.

    Incidentally, should it work the other way then? Can we have biologists and scientists giving lectures at religious education lessons and telling students not to believe anything the Bible claims about the creation of man and the earth? And moreover, do you think religious people would agree to it? :rolleyes:

    Well, that's exactly why you have separate religious and science/biology lessons.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    So the idea of a creator has no part in a debate as to the origin of the universe? Physics and philosophy are linked.

    It has no part in the scientific discussion about events.

    By offering both RE and Science the two viewpoints are covered.
    I find your views just as fundementalist as some more extreme Christian ones.

    Of course they are.

    They are both just thories though. Some would argue that the Duck Billed Platypus is proof of creationism.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    You keep missing the point bongbudda. Science and biology lessons are all about... er... scientific theory and evidence.

    ID is not a scientific theory and there isn't even the smallest trace of evidence to support it- despite what some might claim (though they only claim it so they can sneak into parts of the curriculum where they most definitely don't belong). ID is simply a religious belief... and as such it has no place whatsoever in science and biology lessons.

    Well, that's exactly why you have separate religious and science/biology lessons.

    Of course, I made no mention of biology lessons, but, as I said the further back you push it to the start of time the more philosophy and physics merge. There is only theories about where it all came from, and whether you like it or not the idea of a god does fit into that debate.

    Perhaps I am looking at too specific an example, I'm just saying that the distinction between idea's about the creation arent as simple as you are making out.

    I'm not in anyway defending ID, I dont know much about it, its just I have met a couple of people studying higher physics and religion (in its broadest possible meaning) isnt divorced from the debate.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    klintock wrote:
    A rare good decision this.

    Intellligunt desine is a fucking joke as a scientific theory.

    It's probably true though. :lol:


    Mm, desine. :p

    Erm, I think they should teach it like, Evolution as the accepted theory (which it is) and then jut say to the children "there is also a religious theory, of intelligent design by a creator." and lightly cover it over, not wasting too much time.

    Really though, its a cock theory. We evolved, fact. There may possibly have been intervention, which there is rather ALOT of evidence it could well ahve not been a God... but foreign lifeforms. Possbily beings from another planet trying to guide us in the correct way.

    Of course, the "feet on the ground" people want to dismiss this entirley.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    Really though, its a cock theory. We evolved, fact. There may possibly have been intervention, which there is rather ALOT of evidence it could well ahve not been a God... but foreign lifeforms. Possbily beings from another planet trying to guide us in the correct way.

    Of course, the "feet on the ground" people want to dismiss this entirley.

    The problem is that science has, as yet, been unable to explain the origins of existence generally. Fine, so we evolved, but from what? There has to be a starting point and evolution could actually been part of that originally blueprint...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    Mm, desine. :p

    Erm, I think they should teach it like, Evolution as the accepted theory (which it is) and then jut say to the children "there is also a religious theory, of intelligent design by a creator." and lightly cover it over, not wasting too much time.

    Really though, its a cock theory. We evolved, fact. There may possibly have been intervention, which there is rather ALOT of evidence it could well ahve not been a God... but foreign lifeforms. Possbily beings from another planet trying to guide us in the correct way.

    Of course, the "feet on the ground" people want to dismiss this entirley.

    And the fact that there is such a grand design to everything such as the human body was simply an accident............. please!!!
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    And the fact that there is such a grand design to everything such as the human body was simply an accident............. please!!!

    More Evidence for, that against. Infact, far more.

    We evolved from single cell beings, alot of evidence for it. So much, infact, its logical to beleive it. Kindof like saying, "I think the sky is REALLY green" when someone tells you, and provides pictures, of hte blue sky outside. MOK has highlighted the REAL problem... where the hell did these single cell living beings come from, exactally? It is a big one. A big one indeed. And the only answer we can see, is htat someone, or something, created this life.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The problem is that science has, as yet, been unable to explain the origins of existence generally. Fine, so we evolved, but from what? There has to be a starting point and evolution could actually been part of that originally blueprint...

    It's pretty simple thing to say "we don't know, no one really does yet" to children, isn't it?

    Unless you are a teacher or other authority figure that can't admit that kind of thing, of course. Why is it so difficult for most people "in authority" to admit they don't know something?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As Stephen Hawkins explained earlier this year, there are things in the Universe that the human mind might never, not now, not in a million years, understand.

    That doesn't necessarily mean that a mythical being with special powers has to be behind it- it just means that we do not understand it.

    Unfortunately far too many people throughout history have just taken the easy route and concluded that it must be all the work of a deity or another whenever they encountered something they couldn't explain.

    If we had all adopted such attitude we would still believe earthquakes and eclipses were caused by the "wrath of God" or that the Earth was the centre of the Universe and all other celestial bodies rotated around it.

    To suggest that we must have been created by a God because it is so difficult to imagine complex life forms evolving is such an incredibly poor, flat-earthed argument that it doesn't even merit considering outside a religious meeting- let alone at science lessons.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    To suggest that we must have been created by a God because it is so difficult to imagine complex life forms evolving is such an incredibly poor, flat-earthed argument that it doesn't even merit considering outside a religious meeting- let alone at science lessons.

    Its no where near as simple as that though is it.

    Where the big bang came from, what caused it and why are questions which at present (maybe forever) can logically include the possibility of a god of some sort.

    I'm happy (and I want) science to be based in fact, but there is a point at the edges of science where it becomes a guessing game. Kids should be told about this because it would interest them and get them thinking.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    As Stephen Hawkins explained earlier this year, there are things in the Universe that the human mind might never, not now, not in a million years, understand.

    That doesn't necessarily mean that a mythical being with special powers has to be behind it- it just means that we do not understand it.

    It also means that you should not rule out "Intelligent Design" just because no-one can prove it happened that way. It's just another theory and, like Hawkings, should be treated that way.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm happy (and I want) science to be based in fact, but there is a point at the edges of science where it becomes a guessing game.

    And therefore stops being science.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It also means that you should not rule out "Intelligent Design" just because no-one can prove it happened that way. It's just another theory and, like Hawkings, should be treated that way.

    So science should be taught in RE classes?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As someone said earlier, reference should be made in both science and RE that another theory exists.

    I guess it already does in RE with the agnostics...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So we should teach that it's the "luminous ether" acting through the "four elements" in science classes?

    Or that Kami inhabit all inanimate objects, giving them their form?

    Or should we stick religion and all that other unprovable crap (including big bang belief) in one box, and have another box for science?

    I love facts, me. ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    But it does apply to physics, if you are discussing 'the begining' then God does have to feature, at least as part of the debate.


    not technically, because we don't understand something doesnt automatically mean a supernatural being done it, which is what teaching ID says, it doesnt try to explain anything anything, it just says "this doesnt work so a higher being must of done it"


    watching loads of new stargate sg1, very applicable here
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It also means that you should not rule out "Intelligent Design" just because no-one can prove it happened that way. It's just another theory and, like Hawkings, should be treated that way.
    But ID is not a scientific theory of any kind. It does not base its claims in logic, evidence or reasoning based on facts and occurrences.

    That is why ID is not and will never be a scientific theory, and why it should never be taught in science lessons.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fuck it, give kids the keys to the Library/Internet and let the buggers work it out for themselves....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    not technically, because we don't understand something doesnt automatically mean a supernatural being done it, which is what teaching ID says, it doesnt try to explain anything anything, it just says "this doesnt work so a higher being must of done it"

    I'm not sure you read what I posted, I never once said that there is a god, that god made the earth or anything similar.

    What I suggested was (not in reference to ID) that when you are talking about the very begining of time, a god of some sort can be part of a rational and scientific debate.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fuck it, give kids the keys to the Library/Internet and let the buggers work it out for themselves....

    Yup. :thumb: :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    god of some sort can be part of a rational and scientific debate.

    No, it can't.

    :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As someone said earlier, reference should be made in both science and RE that another theory exists.

    I guess it already does in RE with the agnostics...


    they do just state, most scientists currently belive this.....



    most decent scientific theories tend to be VERY applicable i done a lot of work on universe sort of stuff in my 1st year of university, they tend not to bother with the begining of it though, because WE'LL never know in much detail especially as below a certain time unit, we know nothing as you'd have to have a quantum gravitional thing to predict what happens


    what im saying,some theories might be theories, what it means is its virtually impossible to prove, and tends to work under certain assumptions, like quantum theory works on tiny scales and relativity on large large scales, changing the scale turns them into classical physics like things you see day to day, however you cant get quantum mechanical information from relativity and vice versa, at the moment


    we didnt know how the sun worked 150 years ago, does that mean god makes it glow?

    ID is a joke and isn't scientifically rigourous enough, actually theres no checks in it to actually say something had a play in thing, so it isnt even science

    hate being all over the place but theres so much conflicting stuff from the creationists its a joke really and they scupper really interesting developments like it seems like bodies have evolved to well be ready to evolve again, as certain cell parts etc have a degree of freedom and still work so if something changes in their chemistry ever so slightly they'd still actually function as a whole
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    And therefore stops being science.

    yeh but thermodynamics still isnt fully proved, can acurately predict physical properties from concepts that make no sense to me in my 3rd year of doing it :s
Sign In or Register to comment.