Question about the Intelligent Design ruling in Dover yesterday.

[napi21]

I didn't read the actual ruling, but as I understand it, the udge said Intelligent Design cannot be taught in SCIENCE CLASS. He did not say it couldn't be taught in public schools!

All the Freepers calling the WJ this morning are griping about some damn judge forbiding ID to be taught in our schools at all!

They are wrong, aren't they?

[hippiechick]

1. yes.

Your assessment is accurate.


:hi:

[phantom power]

2. It could be taught in a non-science context.

But the entire point was to undermine the science, which for whatever reason seems to be perceived as an existential threat to the fundies.

And really, even if you tried to teach it in something like "comparative religeons," there's not much to teach :-)

[AllegroRondo]

3. You are correct

the ruling only prevents the one minute reading of "evolution is only a theory.... " before teaching biology in a science class, and only applies to the central area of Pennsylvania. It may be cited as precident to prevent teaching of ID in a science context, but that will be up to future judges to decide.

[napi21]

4. Thanks! I'm really having a tough time understanding what all the

fuss is about! I went to a Catholic school for 12 years (a long time ago), and we DID have a SEPARATE religion class every day, but ID was NEVER taught in science class!!!

[kcwayne]

5. The fuss is about separation of Church and State

The judge ruled that ID is religion masquerading as science to get around the constitutional mandates regarding that the state not promote religion. Catholic or other religious schools are not required to abide by the Constitutional protections in this regard, because these schools are not instruments of the state (yet).

In public schools, you cannot have a religion class that is not comparitive religion. The state is not allowed to engage in promoting faith, but it is allowed to conduct study of religion with the presumption that the study is not in fact the practicing of the religion under study.

[AllegroRondo]

12. Right, you can't teach religion as fact

but you can teach "this is what the followers of XXX religion believe"

[kay1864]

7. Technically accurate...

the ruling only prevents the one minute reading of "evolution is only a theory.... " before teaching biology in a science class, and only applies to the central area of Pennsylvania. It may be cited as precident to prevent teaching of ID in a science context, but that will be up to future judges to decide.

But the reality is, it won't be left up to the judges. Why? Because no school district in the country will touch ID with a ten-foot pole now.

- School districts know that a ruling as strongly worded as this one casts a dark shadow on inevitable lawsuits.
- School districts know (or would likely be informed) that that several other school districts rejected the overtures of the Thomas More Law Center (the fundie group that pushed ID onto the Dover School Board), for fear of this exact kind of ruling (and its accompanying costs).

This ruling kicks ass. Every district in the country that might have considered ID will now be going "But didn't you hear what happened in Pennsylvania?"

On top of that, as I understand it, this ruling will not be appealed. Why? Because the defendants (the Dover Area School District) no longer exists--the members were voted off, replaced by anti-ID members.

This ruling kicks ass!

[yellowcanine]

6. They can teach it in philosophy as long as the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Hypothesis (FSMH) is also taught.

[ComerPerro]

8. They teach it as non-science, I'm fine with that

The most important thing is that they keep it out of the biology class.

[satireV]

14. They should teach ID in Spanish class!

Makes as much sense as teaching it in Biology class!

[Strong Atheist]

9. Religion should not be taught

in PUBLIC schools. It can be taught ABOUT, as part of history ...

[POAS]

10. As part of history or

philosophy or mythology or comparitive religions. But it provides no disprovably hypothesis and is therefore not science.

[Strong Atheist]

11. Agreed! nt.

[baby_mouse]

13. They're completely wrong. They don't pay attention. nt

They've already decided everything. That's why they keep saying stupid things.

[librechik]

15. they are wrong--he ruled ID can't be called a scientific theory

and thus not appropriate for science class. I think social studies or philosophy is a better spot for ID, which is an interesting subject in itself, but not demonstrable using science principles, like biological evolution is.

The poor freepers are being used again. Repukkkes like to get them to think we're scum, when we should be united against the repukkkes.