Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » OT: BREAKING NEWS

OT: BREAKING NEWS

Filed at 11:25 am under by dcobranchi

ID goes down in flames in Dover (again).

Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said.

…[H]e wrote, “our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.”

At first glance, this is a good ruling for science. The judge could have ruled narrowly against the Board. Instead, he seems to have ruled against ID. Good deal!

UPDATE: The Panda’s Thumb has more.

UPDATE: Another good quote:

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question 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.

OK– So the vast majority of scientists say that ID isn’t science and now the courts have so ruled. Dave and Annette– face it. You lost. ID is likely dead. Again. Of course, creationism is the zombie of pseudo-science. I have no doubt it will be back with a new scientific-sounding name in a generation.

8 Responses to “OT: BREAKING NEWS”


Comment by
Annette
December 20th, 2005
at 12:16 pm

Daryl,
I didn’t lose!!! (ARG!!!) I’m glad for it–but not for the same reasons as you.
I wasn’t supportive of creationism or ID being taught in the public schools as science. I have said this repeatedly. What have I written that got it into your head that I do?
My interests lie with the students having freedom to explore the issues. 🙂
Annette


Comment by
Daryl Cobranchi
December 20th, 2005
at 12:31 pm

When did anyone ever say students don’t have the freedom to explore the issues? They just can’t do it in science class.

Annette, you’ve many times claimed that ID is science. So, if you wish to stick by your statement that you didn’t lose, tell me I’m wrong and that you’ve NEVER thought and claimed that ID is science. I’ll be more than happy to admit my error and welcome you into the light. Either that, or admit that your side lost.


Comment by
Annette
December 20th, 2005
at 1:28 pm

Don’t you remember my conceding that creationism is based on faith and revelation?


Comment by
Daryl Cobranchi
December 20th, 2005
at 1:46 pm

Exclusively based. No, I didn’t. I concede my error. Now about the age of the Earth…


Comment by
Annette
December 20th, 2005
at 5:07 pm

Hold up, Daryl…LOL We have some things to talk about here before you drink the Kool-Aid.

One side of the coin for me is students being able to explore the flaws of evolution in ps science class. I’m afraid that where we are going is towards censorship. For example, if a student uses material from a creation viewpoint for a report that explores problems with modern scientific dating methods and the teacher objects to the student presenting his information that he gleaned, I think that’s a problem for freedom.

The other side of the coin for me is scientists who have a creationist viewpoint. Individuals like yourself figure that scientists who reject evolution are not *real* scientists. You are quick to look up their circum vitae and start looking for issues with it. There are professors who will not issue a degree to individuals working towards a science major if it is discovered they reject evolution for creation. However, there are many cases where the degree is given and the scientist is out there DOING science, being successful and he/she later rejects evolution for creation. I object to the reasoning that those who reject evolution that they are not *real* scientists.


Comment by
Daryl Cobranchi
December 20th, 2005
at 5:31 pm

The schools should not prevent a kid from doing a report from a creationist viewpoint. The teacher is free, however, to grade him down based on the fact that it’s not science.

Yes, any scientist who is so willfully blind to all of the evidence for an old Earth does not deserve the label scientist. How could I, as another scientist, trust their observations if they could look at all of the available data and conclude that the Earth is 6,000 years old? And the same goes for Old Earth creationists. If I can’t trust them on a no-brainer like the age of the Earth, there’s no way I’m going to trust them on what might be a close call.


Comment by
Annette
December 21st, 2005
at 8:05 pm

Daryl,
Why would you put trust in any scientist at all (besides yourself)? There are scientists who are doing bad science in order to keep grant funding or for some other motive. I personally don’t care what a scientist believes. Good science is good science. If it’s bad science, it won’t be a secret for long. I don’t think anyone should lose their job or position based on what they believe or don’t. That’s persecution.


Comment by
Daryl Cobranchi
December 21st, 2005
at 8:15 pm

Annette,

You don’t understand how science works. I have to be able to trust other scientists as I don’t have the time to replicate every study in the world. In the end, it comes down to a judgment call on other scientists’ reliability. YECs just aren’t credible. And it colors everything they touch.