creationists, did you know that it was made illegal to get in touch with Intelligent layout science?
http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=287
Judge Rules Intelligent Design Unconstitutional
BY ADELLE M. BANKS and BILL SULON © 2005 Religion News Service
federal judge dealt a setback to the teaching of intelligent design in public schools by ruling Tuesday (Dec. 20) that a Pennsylvania school district’s policy promoted an unconstitutional variation of creationism, a religious theory.
U.S. Middle District Judge John E. Jones, who presided over a six-week trial in Harrisburg, Pa., ruled that intelligent design violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which bars government from establishing a religion or favoring one religion over another.
Jones said it is “abundantly clear” the Dover Area School District’s policy–which requires that ninth-grade students hear a statement on intelligent design prior to the start of a unit on evolution — “violates the Establishment Clause.”
Jones added: “In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal issue of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.”
The landmark case, which garnered international attention, pitted the American Civil Liberties Union and 11 parents in the Dover district against the school board’s policy. Proponents of intelligent design say the universe and many living things are so complex that they must have been created by an intelligent, higher being. Critics say intelligent design is unscientific, rooted in creationism and a barely veiled attempt to bring religion into public schools.
Opponents to the Dover policy said the board was motivated by religious beliefs, specifically Christianity, when it approved a one-minute statement in which evolution is described as “not a fact” and intelligent design is mentioned as an alternative explanation of the origin of life.
“This is a tremendous victory for public schools and religious freedom,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of the Washington-based Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, which joined the Pennsylvania ACLU in the suit on behalf of the parents.
“It means that school board members have no right to impose their personal religious beliefs on students through the school curriculum.”
Ralph G. Neas, president of the Washington-based People for the American Way Foundation, agreed: “The court recognized that intelligent design is nothing more than religious creationism in disguise, and that, as such, it may not be taught as science in public schools. This decision is a resounding victory for science education, for public school students, and for the Constitution.”
Advocates of intelligent design criticized Jones, a Republican appointee of President Bush, as an activist judge. They promised the decision will have limited effect because it applies only to the federal court district in which it was handed down.
“Anyone who thinks a court ruling is going to kill off interest in intelligent design is living in another world,” said John West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank researching intelligent design.
“Americans don’t like to be told there is some idea that they aren’t permitted to learn about. It used to be said that banning a book in Boston guaranteed it would be a best-seller. Banning intelligent design in Dover will likely only fan interest in the theory.”
Casey Luskin, a Discovery Institute attorney, also downplayed the decision. “In the larger debate over intelligent design, this decision will be of minor significance,” said Luskin. She said the theory’s “ultimate validity” will be determined “not by the courts but by the scientific evidence pointing to design.”
Bill Sulon writes for The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pa.
theyre always after us candy pants …
God created us and the world
We are His work
I don’t need science to tell me that
Whats your point? A judges interpretation doesn’t prove anything. What are you getting at?
I don’t see in there where calling Creationism science is illegal.
You can call Creationism a science all you want. You just can’t teach it as a science in a public school.
Creationism is a religious tenet, not science.
Religion is superstition.
its a good thing too, intelligent design is not science, it is not factual or supported by any kind of evidence. lies are usually a bad thing to teach children
Did you know it was illegal to teach evolution after the Scopes Trial?
The verdict was overturned on a technicality, not on the validity of the “science”.
Just another case of an evolutionarily biased judge trying to make sure an alternate theory is shut down and kept quiet, what else is new?
No, and this is supposed to affect me, how?
A secular judge making making a ruling in an area he’s very simply NOT QULAIFIED to speak on doesn’t means much.. it just reaffirms that the jutice system amounts to – JUST US, not necessarily Justice.
Oh well. He’ll have to answer for his stance one day! Glad I’m not him.
Take care!
I love it when people lose their posteriors in a court case–and tell everyone it’s just a minor set back lol. For other districts it clearly sets a precedent which makes it much much much easier to have this creationist crap thrown out of other districts. It’s actually a mortal wound for attempting to teach this creationist crud in schools.
Creationism is not illegal, it is ignorant and stupid that’s all.
Of course.
After all, it’s art and architecture!
- hides his magical square and compass -
Do you really think that matters to a Christian. Satan is at work throughout the world, especially in our legal system and our governments. All that just goes to strengthen our beliefs in God. I’m assuming that you are an Atheist. I will pray that you come to give up the worship of yourself and accept God.
Technically “unconstitutional” <> “illegal”
Nevertheless, nice to see that at least some places ID is getting the smackdown it deserves.
It is generally illegal to tell misleading or false claims disguised as truth, where harm is likely to be caused.
Ken Ham’s “Creation Science” ‘s “In Intelligent Design” manifesto has been determined by courts and scientific community to be a bunch of non-truths and/or educationally harmful.
Put simply it is harmful propaganda.
There are however other forms of “Intelligent Design” that may be scientifically plausible.
Lee Smolin’s “Baby Universes” model points to the likelihood that our entire universe is a single living evolved entity with an IQ of Godlike proportions. If this is true prior to our Big Bang our universe was tweaked by evolution (or whatever) to a highly advanced “design”. When we get sick we take medicines designed to artificially help the natural design of things. We are also intelligent organisms so there is some intelligence involved in our existence. E.g. would be parents have “designs” on partners they believe will make good babies.
Thus there may be examples where the term Intelligent Design may be used in valid ways but Ken Ham’s ideas so labeled are quite invalid, mostly however not because the ideas themselves are silly but because of the unscientific way they are arrived at and supported.