OT PENNSYLVANIA DISTRICT COURT BANS TEACHING OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Dec. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A Pennsylvania school district cannot require
the teaching of intelligent design in high school biology classes, a
federal judge ruled in a case that may influence other challenges to
the theory of evolution.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
ruled today that the Dover, Pennsylvania school board can't force the
teaching of intelligent design, a theory that claims that the universe
is too complex to have developed randomly and must have been designed
by a superior power. The board in October 2004 ordered that intelligent
design be introduced alongside the theory that life evolved by natural
selection.

``To preserve the separation of church and state'' mandated by the
First Amendment, the Dover Area School District is barred from
maintaining the ID policy in any school, Jones wrote. ``The students,
parents and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better
than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter
waste of monetary and personal resources.''

....

In his opinion, Jones said the key issue is ``whether Intelligent
Design is science,'' and said, ``we have concluded that it is not.''

Jones said the concept of Intelligent Design, ``cannot uncouple itself
from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.''

The ruling ``has potential impact'' across the country because ``it's a
piece of ammunition that will be used'' by the winning party, Landsberg
said.

Dover voters ousted eight of the nine school-board members who backed
the plan in November. The ninth wasn't up for re- election. The vote
came the same day the Kansas school board adopted statewide science
standards casting doubt on evolution.

Eight Dover families filed the federal lawsuit last December, accusing
the board of threatening to fire science teachers who refused to give
creationism equal weight with evolution.

``Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross,'' the board's
leading proponent of intelligent design said during a discussion of the
issue, according to the suit. ``Can't someone take a stand for him?''

....

<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aHhAnvL4XhjU&refer=us>

Another bush loss and it's just the beginning. Sure takes US citizens a
*long* time to wake-up!

Here's another link..

[url]http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design.ap/index.html[/url]

Learning Richard, 12/20/2005, 12:30:11 PM,
<1135099811.283152.45460@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Dec. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A Pennsylvania school district cannot require
> the teaching of intelligent design in high school biology classes, a
> federal judge ruled in a case that may influence other challenges to
> the theory of evolution.[/color]

So, Richard. You claim to love Jesus, what is your take on this?

On 20 Dec 2005 20:31:37 GMT, "badgolferman"
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Learning Richard, 12/20/2005, 12:30:11 PM,
><1135099811.283152.45460@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Dec. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A Pennsylvania school district cannot require
>> the teaching of intelligent design in high school biology classes, a
>> federal judge ruled in a case that may influence other challenges to
>> the theory of evolution.[/color]
>
>So, Richard. You claim to love Jesus, what is your take on this?[/color]

I'm a Christian and I believe "intelligent design" should not be
pushed in public schools. I believe there should be a separation of
church and state. Don't you?
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0eb7v1x675825007@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> Learning Richard, 12/20/2005, 12:30:11 PM,
> <1135099811.283152.45460@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Dec. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A Pennsylvania school district cannot require
> > the teaching of intelligent design in high school biology classes, a
> > federal judge ruled in a case that may influence other challenges to
> > the theory of evolution.[/color]
>
> So, Richard. You claim to love Jesus, what is your take on this?[/color]

When my youngest was Confirmed Catholic, a year or so ago, he was given a
400 page book, "The Catechism of the Catholic Church" (or similar title) by
our church right after the ceremony..

Sure, like a 15-year old kid is going to read that! And AFTER he's been
Confirmed! So, I borrowed it from him and started in on it myself. I had
not considered our "Catechism" for - well never mind how many years - and I
thought I might as well read the unabridged version for once.

I found one of the teachings of the Catholic Church is that - I can't
remember precisely how they put it - that you can't go wrong by honestly
studying the natural world. In other words, good science reveals more God
than it takes away.

What was going on in PA was crappy science dishonestly encouraged by people
with a religious agenda in mind. The ID concept of irreducible complexity
is an interesting one but, until it has been fairly conclusively
demonstrated that something IS irreducibly complex, evolution is a better
scientific explanation for how things came to be the way they are.

Frankly, I think grasping at bad science to "prove" God is an example of
weak faith.

Curious, apparently he is not a learned Constitutional Judge. The is no
mention of a separation of church and state in the first Amendment. The
first Amendment says;

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Prior to Justice Black the court held that to mean there can be no national
OR STATE churches as were the Church of England and the Roman Catholic
church as well as established churches in several of the states. The most
recent rulings on ones practice of religion have supported that prior view.
The Supreme court has been deciding practice of religion issues as a free
speech issue as well, in some rulings. Evolution is after all still only a
theory, not a proven scientific fact. Even Darwin never postulated true
evolution as the origin of a species, only the evaluation of individual
species.

mike hunt


"Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135099811.283152.45460@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
>
> Dec. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A Pennsylvania school district cannot require
> the teaching of intelligent design in high school biology classes, a
> federal judge ruled in a case that may influence other challenges to
> the theory of evolution.[/color]

<snip>
[color=blue]
> ``To preserve the separation of church and state'' mandated by the
> First Amendment, the Dover Area School District is barred from
> maintaining the ID policy in any school, >[/color]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:56:05 +0000, "DH" <dh@stargate.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:xn0eb7v1x675825007@news.readfreenews.net...[color=green]
>> Learning Richard, 12/20/2005, 12:30:11 PM,
>> <1135099811.283152.45460@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > Dec. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A Pennsylvania school district cannot require
>> > the teaching of intelligent design in high school biology classes, a
>> > federal judge ruled in a case that may influence other challenges to
>> > the theory of evolution.[/color]
>>
>> So, Richard. You claim to love Jesus, what is your take on this?[/color]
>
>When my youngest was Confirmed Catholic, a year or so ago, he was given a
>400 page book, "The Catechism of the Catholic Church" (or similar title) by
>our church right after the ceremony..
>
>Sure, like a 15-year old kid is going to read that! And AFTER he's been
>Confirmed! So, I borrowed it from him and started in on it myself. I had
>not considered our "Catechism" for - well never mind how many years - and I
>thought I might as well read the unabridged version for once.
>
>I found one of the teachings of the Catholic Church is that - I can't
>remember precisely how they put it - that you can't go wrong by honestly
>studying the natural world. In other words, good science reveals more God
>than it takes away.
>
>What was going on in PA was crappy science dishonestly encouraged by people
>with a religious agenda in mind. The ID concept of irreducible complexity
>is an interesting one but, until it has been fairly conclusively
>demonstrated that something IS irreducibly complex, evolution is a better
>scientific explanation for how things came to be the way they are.
>
>Frankly, I think grasping at bad science to "prove" God is an example of
>weak faith.
>[/color]
Extremely well put.
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================

I wonder about whether a "theory" should be banned under the guise of
"separation of church & state".

No wonder we have so many people, even some in this group, that don't
see the need for the ability to think about all sides of an issue
before acting.

The ability to differentiate "facts" from "theories" is probably what
has been lacking in our educational system for years.

I believe the first amendment says congress shall not establish a
religion nor interfere practice of a religion. The much blathered
"separation" is not the correct quote, it is an interpretation. And
just maybe this interpretation was made by someone that fails the
logic or reading test.

Ron

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:20:32 GMT, "ron" <really [email]good@serviceu.com[/email]>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>I wonder about whether a "theory" should be banned under the guise of
>"separation of church & state".[/color]

As the court said, it's not a theory. It's religion.
[color=blue]
>I believe the first amendment says congress shall not establish a
>religion nor interfere practice of a religion.[/color]

So bringing intelligent design into public schools should be
forbidden.
[color=blue]
>The much blathered
>"separation" is not the correct quote, it is an interpretation.[/color]

Sure is.
[color=blue]
>And just maybe this interpretation was made by someone that fails the
>logic or reading test.[/color]

You mean like the people who claim there were dinosours on the ARC?

heh.
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:06:23 -0500, "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>Another bush loss and it's just the beginning. Sure takes US citizens a
>*long* time to wake-up![/color]

I'd say this last fuckup got the attention of a lot more than just us
independents and the left. Even some of those staunch supporters of
the far right have been distancing themselves.

Now only the true bush whores remain. They've been fucked so much
they'll never believe the truth. Even after it bites bush on the ass.
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================

badgolferman wrote:[color=blue]
> Learning Richard, 12/20/2005, 12:30:11 PM,
> <1135099811.283152.45460@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Dec. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A Pennsylvania school district cannot require
> > the teaching of intelligent design in high school biology classes, a
> > federal judge ruled in a case that may influence other challenges to
> > the theory of evolution.[/color]
>
> So, Richard. You claim to love Jesus, what is your take on this?[/color]

What does Jesus have to do with a bunch of backwards, uneducated morons
trying to say the world was created 5,000 years ago because some drunk
prophet wrote that in a book one time?

Learning Richard, 12/20/2005,5:54:27 PM, wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> badgolferman wrote:[color=green]
> > Learning Richard, 12/20/2005, 12:30:11 PM,
> > <1135099811.283152.45460@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > Dec. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A Pennsylvania school district cannot
> > > require the teaching of intelligent design in high school biology
> > > classes, a federal judge ruled in a case that may influence other
> > > challenges to the theory of evolution.[/color]
> >
> > So, Richard. You claim to love Jesus, what is your take on this?[/color]
>
> What does Jesus have to do with a bunch of backwards, uneducated
> morons trying to say the world was created 5,000 years ago because
> some drunk prophet wrote that in a book one time?[/color]

The drunk prophet you are referring to would be Moses, right? The
dates are immaterial, the morality isn't. If Evolution is to be taught
in schools then Creationism should be mentioned also. To the best of
my knowledge, the missing link between monkeys and people has not been
proven yet.

--
"A zebra does not change its spots." ~ Al Gore

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0eb7z2p4qfleb000@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> Learning Richard, 12/20/2005,5:54:27 PM, wrote:[color=green]
> >
> > badgolferman wrote:[color=darkred]
> > > Learning Richard, 12/20/2005, 12:30:11 PM,
> > > <1135099811.283152.45460@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dec. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A Pennsylvania school district cannot
> > > > require the teaching of intelligent design in high school biology
> > > > classes, a federal judge ruled in a case that may influence other
> > > > challenges to the theory of evolution.
> > >
> > > So, Richard. You claim to love Jesus, what is your take on this?[/color]
> >
> > What does Jesus have to do with a bunch of backwards, uneducated
> > morons trying to say the world was created 5,000 years ago because
> > some drunk prophet wrote that in a book one time?[/color]
>
> The drunk prophet you are referring to would be Moses, right? The
> dates are immaterial, the morality isn't. If Evolution is to be taught
> in schools then Creationism should be mentioned also. To the best of
> my knowledge, the missing link between monkeys and people has not been
> proven yet.
>[/color]

Are you serious or are you just pulling LR's chain?

If you're seriously suggesting we teach Creationism, are you going to teach
that the Earth is about 6K years old?
[color=blue]
> --
> "A zebra does not change its spots." ~ Al Gore[/color]

DH, 12/20/2005,6:06:43 PM, wrote:
[color=blue]
> Are you serious or are you just pulling LR's chain?[/color]

You decide.
[color=blue]
> If you're seriously suggesting we teach Creationism, are you going to
> teach that the Earth is about 6K years old?[/color]

I didn't say teach Creationism; I said mention it as another "theory".
I also said dates are immaterial. But by the same token it's hard for
me to believe through "carbon dating" archaelogists can pinpoint time
eras to within 100s of years when dealing with stuff as ancient as a
fossilized bone. I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm just saying I don't
believe their claims either.

--
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
support of Paul." ~ George Bernard Shaw

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0eb803p4rx38t000@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> DH, 12/20/2005,6:06:43 PM, wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Are you serious or are you just pulling LR's chain?[/color]
>
> You decide.
>[/color]

It's not clear enough to decide, so I asked for more information.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > If you're seriously suggesting we teach Creationism, are you going to
> > teach that the Earth is about 6K years old?[/color]
>
> I didn't say teach Creationism; I said mention it as another "theory".
> I also said dates are immaterial. But by the same token it's hard for
> me to believe through "carbon dating" archaelogists can pinpoint time
> eras to within 100s of years when dealing with stuff as ancient as a
> fossilized bone. I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm just saying I don't
> believe their claims either.
>[/color]

Your answer is somewhat ambiguous. Are you going to include the idea that
the "theory" of Creationism holds that the Earth is 6,000 years old?
[color=blue]
> --
> "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
> support of Paul." ~ George Bernard Shaw[/color]