ARGville

A Community for anyone living in a reality-based world -- Visit us daily to:
-- express opinions about current events, politics, religion, and society
-- share advice about relationships, dating, and parenting
-- rant about your life, work, friends, and partners
-- relax with humor and short stories

To cover the role religion plays in current events, our relationships, our personal life styles, and every day life situations.


 


Thursday, December 22, 2005

 

IN THE NEWS: Judge Rules Against Intelligent Design

All quote have been taken from this CNN article posted at 12:40 pm EST on Tuesday, December 20, 2005.

For decades, the debate over evolution has been a sore spot for many religious groups. More recently, the concept of Intelligent Design, ID, has managed to make its way into realm of discussion in the scientific community.


In an opinion issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Jones ruled that teaching "intelligent design" would violate the Constitutional separation of church and state. "We have concluded that it is not [science], and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," Jones writes in his 139 page opinion posted on the court's Web site.

"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions," Jones writes.

Intelligent design claims the complexity of some systems of nature cannot be explained by evolution but must be attributed to a designer or supernatural being. The Dover Area School District, about 25 miles from the state capital, sought to become the first in the nation to require high school science teachers to teach the concept of intelligent design as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution.

Jones presided over a six-week trial that ended last month. His decision applies only to the Pennsylvania school district. His decision would block the school district's plan "requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."

Jones says in his ruling that he did not doubt that intelligent design advocates "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors," but he also said scientific experts testified that Darwin's theory "in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

This decision comes as a blow to the heart for many concerned Christian parents who want their children to learn an alternative theory to evolution. As it has for so long, this debate will continue in the weeks, months, and years to come.

Use the comment feature below to voice your opinion about this decision!

Comments:
Personally, I think that intelligent design should be taught in schools. Yes, intelligent design is a theory that can not be scientifically proven, but so is evolution. In my opinion, it takes more faith to believe that all life forms developed from a cosmic accident than it does to believe in an intelligent designer, whomever one wishes to believe that may be.
 
I totally agree with the decision. Intelligent design is not science. It can't get any simpler than that! Christian parents were disappointed in what? That they can't force their beliefs on others? They can teach their own children about creation all they want, but creation is not science! Even if the big bang is theory, it's still scientific theory. I would have no problem with schools having a Religions class, and teaching students about many different religions -- not just Christianity -- and then, sure, cover creationism. So, the ruling doesn't alter a thing about the possibility that creation is right, it simply is saying that it doesn't belong in a Sciences class.
 
Intelligent design SHOULD be taught in class if the other explinations are. They should change the name though, "Intelligent design" sounds stupid.
 
The judge ruled against public schools teaching the intellegent design theory, that's all, nothing more, nothing less. Was he wrong? My opinion, yes. If one possibility that cannot be scientifically proven is taught, then, if another theory is presented, even if it, too, isn't scientifically proven and it's impossible to do so, that theory ought to be taught to the children, too. Maybe, if the children know that there are more than one yet scientifically ynproven theories, someone will grow up to try to prove one true or the other false.

For those of you who do not want the theory of intelligent design taught in school, are you afraid your child will grow up to scientifically prove it's validity?
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

 


Contact Us | Resource Links