The courts and intelligent design

[Finding Rawls]

I've been taking a lot of flack for my view on this and I just don't understand how so many people here can disagree.

We don't need any posts here about how dumb and unscientific ID is. This is about whether the courts in America can decide what is taught in the classroom. A piece of legislation by the state can't dictate that ID must be taught whenever evolution is taught. The SCOTUS already ruled on that.

The question I'm curious about is if people here really believe that the Courts can decide if ID can be taught period. Do you believe the court should be able to ban the teaching of ID in the schools?

[DrWeird]

1. I believe they shouldn't have too.

I believe everybody old enough to be literate should be able to see how stupid and unscientific ID is and how it has no place in the classroom. That said, it's a shame that we have to go to court to remove it from the classrooms. If Creationists hadn't gotten onto school boards and passed laws requiring ID be taught, we wouldn't be in this mess.

[Finding Rawls]

5. Not the question

Do you believe the court should be able to ban the teaching of ID in the schools?

[DrWeird]

6. You're framing the question...

in a ridiculous manner.

[Finding Rawls]

8. No I'm not

This is about the seperation of powers and a host of other issues that directly deal with the functioning of a democracy.

[DrWeird]

9. Alright fine.

It's the law that children have to attend school.

Creationism taught in public schools is a violation of the seperation of church and state.

Therefore, I haven't a problem if courts ruled that schools couldn't teach creationism.

[Finding Rawls]

11. Not the question

It's a non religious argument. ID does not take on any specific conception of God. Does not violate church/state barrier. So, try the question again.

[Walt Starr]

14. IT MOST CERTAINLY DOES TAKE A RELIGIOUS POSTION

The entire basis of ID is that some invisible "intelligence" "created" the universe without first demonstrating the existance of said "intelligence"

It is precisely a religious statement.

[DrWeird]

15. Bullshit.

ID is a part of Creationism which is most certainly a religious movement, specifically an American Evangelical movement and no amount of denial and obfuscation can change that. In fact, I believe that's exactly the conclusion the court came to.

[Finding Rawls]

18. All this talk of truth and certainty

Makes me feel like, I don't know, I'm at an evangelical prayer circle

[Finding Rawls]

19. Maybe a KKK rally? n/t

[DrWeird]

21. LOL.

The KKK would probably be happy with intelligent design being taught in schools.

[ChairOne]

32. You're the only one using those words....

... unless you want to continue deliberately misquoting people...

And I didn't realize evangelicals were so big on truth - I thought they were much more concerned with faith - a much more inexpensive commodity...

But ok - I promised to leave this thread to you - my apologies..

[immoderate]

17. Seems to me...

that you can't teach about ID without hypothesizing the Designer, who has supernatural powers. And since there's no evidence for Him, that requires faith. How is that different from religion.

I've seen all sorts of characterizations of God, just on this board, e.g. "God is love" or "the energy that binds us to the universe." Do you think you could get away with an intelligent designer that is not the same as a god?

--IMM

[hlthe2b]

16. Ditto....

[One_Life_To_Give]

41. Truth in Advertising Laws?

Teaching ID in a Science class is false advertising. Including it their implies that it has met a certain level of Scientific Rigor, which ID has not.

[Dorian Gray]

97. My thought....

I'm religous, and I do believe in God. I know that's not necessarily a popular position on this site, but here's what I think about teaching ID.

Science class is for science. I believe in evolution, though I also believe it is sparked by Intelligent Design. (aka GOD.)

However, I don't belive that God should be taught in science class. What's wrong with, "Well, evolution works this way. Some people believe that God created the world, some people believe that there is design behind evolution. But, we're here to learn the theory of evolution, which is this."


Then the teacher teaches the science. There really is no more about ID to teach in the classroom.

Does this even make sense?

[Walt Starr]

2. No, the court can decide HOW ID can be taught

If ID is to be taught in a public school, it must be taught as mythology or philosophy. It cannot be taught as science because it is not science.

[rucky]

3. States mandate cirriculum all the time.

Please clarify.

[Finding Rawls]

7. it was a ruling on a Louisiana law

The law mandated the teaching of ID if evolution was taught in the school. Mainly shot down because it had a religious purpose.

[Swamp Rat]

63. Please explain what you know about Louisiana law and Napoleonic code

Did you pass the Louisiana bar?

[One_Life_To_Give]

4. Depends on how taught

I don't have a problem necessarily with teaching Alchemy either. If you want to take a course in it. But to teach this as Science? No way. Neither have the merit to be discussed in a science classroom.

[Red State Blues]

10. Hmmmm?

"We don't need any posts here about how dumb and unscientific ID is."

uh, ok.

"dumb and unscientific" = ID, "the earth is flat", "the sun revolves around the earth", "phrenology is an exact and usefull science", " 'Y' is a genetically inferior race", "the holocaust is a myth" ...

what you are really asking is:

Do you believe the court should be able to ban the teaching of "X" in the schools?

?

[Finding Rawls]

13. Yes, you are right

And I believe ID is a prime example in order to determine the principle.

[Red State Blues]

20. OK.

I didn't answer my question above because I thought it was rhetorical. I agree with the posters above that you have "framed" this but I'll take it as legitimate in that it is fair to say this is the part that bothers you most. In fact, it bothered me too; SO I came up with the example above to make us both "feel better"/"work this thing out". I suggest you keep plugging in values for X above until you find one that you positively can say you agree that the courts should be able to keep out of schools. Once you've found ANY example, where the answer to the question is yes, you've invalidated the argument. (the unstated argument that it feels wrong for the courts to "ban" anything in schools). If you can't find anything that you would answer yes to, let me know.

[Finding Rawls]

23. It's not that it feels wrong

it is wrong for the courts to ban materials from being taught in schools. (obviously leaving out that material which would violate constitutional principles).

[DrWeird]

24. Well, then you answered your own question.

Since ID violates constitutional principles.

[Red State Blues]

28. Are you saying

That there is no value for "X" above that would validate the question? (for you?)

[immoderate]

22. Should schools have the responsibility of teaching

logic and critical thinking? How about discerning what is fact?

How about the fact that ID is an unsubstantiated attack on the Theory of Evolution, which is accepted science?

Suppose some "academic" decided to teach that there's no such thing as atoms. Do you support that?

--IMM

[Finding Rawls]

25. You're going off topic and not answering my question

Should the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter, be able to ban ID from schools? (And since everyone is bringing this up, let's assume they decide it doesn't violate Church/state)

[DrWeird]

26. That's an awfully weird assumption.

Since they decided the opposite.

[Finding Rawls]

27. I don't believe they did

Give me the case

[immoderate]

30. Let's assume that all squares are circles.

Not off topic. If students were taught that there are no such thing as atoms, or some other false information, is there any recourse at all? It shouldn't have to reach the courts, but what if the school board endorses it?

What if a school system teaches that George W. Bush is the designated prophet of the almighty? Could a court tell them to stop? You think that ID is different somehow, but you can't specify without getting into the validity of that teaching. ID simply goes against rational scientific rational thinking and that is what should be taught when the subject comes up.

--IMM

[ChairOne]

46. Oddly enough, you don't have to *assume* this....

"Let's assume that all squares are circles."

It's actually true, so long as you measure distance differently - and it mathematically kosher too!

lol - I know that's not your point.... just havin some fun.....

[immoderate]

12. ID is religion. Therefore violates First Amendment.

Seems to me courts should be the place where decisions are made on whether other pseudo-science subjects should be treated. Astrology, numerology, dowsing, channeling, fortune telling, should be mentioned, but as examples of malarkey.

One of the problems of teaching about religions in school, is that at some point the idea that they can't all be true may come up. That's why I did not entertain religious discussions when I taught. Critical thinking should be taught, and students should do the analysis.

--IMM

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Finding Rawls]

31. I will answer it,

but I posted this thread to get an answer to a very specific question and I'd like it resolved before I move on to dismantling your facist ideology

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrWeird]

36. No, no, he's calling you a facist.

You know, like the Cu Clux Clan.

[ChairOne]

42. I know - was doing a lil Foxworthy impression... /eom

[DrWeird]

35. These crazy facists!

What with their science and their science textbooks. Jeez, they're like the KKK or something!

:eyes:

[ChairOne]

You've seen em too?

What's the flat-intelligently-designed world coming to?

rofl

[immoderate]

43. Court decision

Check out: http://arnica.csustan.edu/biol3020/courts/court_decisions.htm

Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education: In 1997. the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana rejected a policy requiring teachers to read aloud a disclaimer whenever they taught about evolution, ostensibly to promote "critical thinking". The Court wrote that, "In mandating this disclaimer, the School Board is endorsing religion by disclaiming the teaching of evolution in such a manner as to convey the message that evolution is a religious viewpoint that runs counter to... other religious views." The decision is also noteworthy for recognizing that curriculum proposals for "intelligent design" are equivalent to proposals for teaching "creation science". (Freiler v Tangipahoa Board of Education, No. 94-3577 (E.D. La. Aug. 8, 1997). On August 13, 1999, the 5th circuit court of appeals affirmed the ruling. (Click here to read appeals court ruling.) On June 19, 2000, the Supreme Court declined to hear the School Board’s appeal, thus letting the lower court’s decision stand.

--IMM

[Finding Rawls]

47. Ha

A biology professors take on law. Yea, that'll do it for me.

[DrWeird]

49. Oh, you're a law professor?

I didn't know. Sounds very elitist.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[immoderate]

53. Charles Bronson in "Mr. Majestyk"...

"I can see there's no getting on the right side of you."

You are logic-proof.

--IMM

[dpibel]

64. But

Wouldn't you really like to respond to the substance of the statement, rather than the source. I mean, since you're here for honest and rigorous debate 'n all.

[Finding Rawls]

33. HEAD COUNT

No smart ass replies, just a yes or no answer. If you assume the Supreme Court would not rule that ID violates the Constitution, should the court be allowed to ban the teaching of ID in schools? Just a yes or no reply to this post.

[DjTj]

37. Make a poll...

That's the best way to get a real head count.

BTW, I say NO. This is something that should be done through the democratic process. I don't want to trust judges to make individual determinations all across the country. Communities should be able to debate this and come to the truth.

[ChairOne]

40. S/he can't....

Hasn't donated... And I suspect s/he won't - for reasons that we can all speculate on...

[Forkboy]

62. psssst

you haven't donated either.

I can speculate as to why :shrug:

[immoderate]

56. Bad idea: Voting on what is fact.

I did this in a math class. I allowed the students to vote on what the right answer to a problem was. I deliberately gave them problems that I know most would get wrong.

Demonstrates a lot of aspects about civics, including "tyranny of the majority." The ones who got it right were upset. I told them to "get the others to change their vote." That was the use of cooperative education.--IMM

[Bridget Burke]

38. Smartass reply here.

Intelligent Design should absolutely not be taught in science class. If any public schools have resources enough for philosophy classes--discuss it there.

I don't care whether or not any court has a hand it it.

[DrWeird]

39. Is this Bizarro Supreme Court from the Bizarro World?

In that case they should declare Bizzaro-vision for everybody.

[goondogger]

44. Utter nonsense

"If you assume the Supreme Court would not rule that ID violates the Constitution, should the court be allowed to ban the teaching of ID in schools? Just a yes or no reply to this post."

Absurd. Why would the SCOTUS have anything to do with it if we're to assume that there's not a Constitutional issue?

Oh, guess I didn't follow the rules of bifurcating the argument to a yes or no answer. Sue me.

[Red State Blues]

45. jackass

I'm still waiting for a simple yes or no from you!

How about this:

Do I believe that the courts should be able to ban the teaching of 'X' in schools?

well I probably can find an example of 'x' to where I would say yes, but let's assume for a second that I can't.

THEN, let's take another look at the question:

Do I believe that the courts should be able to ban the teaching of 'X' AS 'Y' in schools?
where x = any old stupid subject under the sun AND
y = a classification, such as "Science" or "Math" or "English"

Then YES. I BELIEVE THAT THE COURTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO BAN THE TEACHING OF 'ID' AS "SCIENCE" IN SCHOOLS.

[Red State Blues]

52. why I said jackass

I have stayed on topic.

I haven't appealed to constitutional issues or used other methods to confuse the issue.

I've done everything possible to clarify this issue and boil it down to its simplest form to HELP YOU answer YOUR question.

You would rather argue than reason.

what am i doing in gd anyway?

[immoderate]

48. Tieing yourself in knots?

Why would the court ban something that they had found constitutional?

--IMM

[Finding Rawls]

58. Constitutional with regards to Church/State n/t

[immoderate]

61. Your supposition is steeped in paradox.

Cannot imagine that the SCOTUS could rule on ID without some context. Could they ignore the fact that all scientists would reject ID as a scientific theory? Could they ignore the fact that the Intelligent Design hypothesis is Creationism? Does disguising the Creator by calling him the Designer really change things?

How could it reach the Supreme Court without being filtered through the lower courts which have already said as much?

How would you answer the questions:

• Who is the designer of the universe?
  
• What is he made of?
  
• Where does he reside?
  
• Why did or does he do it?
  
• What will he do in the future?
  

How could a real science teacher teach ID without pointing out that it is the opposite of science?

--IMM

[Lexingtonian]

50. that's easy enough

In public schools, yes, they can. They can in effect ban Holocaust revisionism, after all.

In private or religiously chartered voucher-based schools, they can't. They can probably demand some amount of Evolution be taught in order for the school(s) to remain accredited, but that's a different kettle of fish.

[Finding Rawls]

60. I'd like to know of the court case

Was there a case where Holocaust revisionism was banned from being taught in a public school by a court according to constitutional demand?

I'd like to read that case

[Walt Starr]

55. Won't answer it in this cheesy fashion, post a poll

that's the only way you get a straight yes or no answer from me on this complex issue.

[GaYellowDawg]

54. YES. BAN IT.

Look, there's never been a single ID paper published in a single peer-reviewed scientific journal. EVER. Why? Because it's crap as science. Presence/absence of a designer (e.g., creator) is nonfalsifiable. Is evolution falsifiable? You betcha. Find one animal species - just one - that's more closely genetically related to corn than any other animal and you've just blown evolution clean out of the water.

You said, "We don't need any posts here about how dumb and unscientific ID is." Well, that's exactly wrong. We need posts about how unscientific ID is to emphasize that the origins of ID do NOT reside in science. Religion is the origin of ID. It's an evolved form of creationism, if you'll forgive the obvious play on words.

And if ID is not science, but religion, teaching it in public schools is endorsement of religion. Definitely within any court's purview to ban its teaching.

[JonTheGeek]

57. Yes, I do.

I think the answer is that school boards should NOT have a say in what the cirriculum is, that should be something mandated by the state. And the state should be checked by the courts to make sure everything is constiutional etc...

It would be nice if there were some sort of panel of actual scientists who understand the issue rather than a board of dimwits who are totally clueless about the issues involved.

Saying that ID is a scientific arguement is grossly misunderstanding what the scientific process is. Intelligent Design has no reason to exist other than to justify certain religous beliefs, if you accept it alongside evolution it just complicates things...

Example:
"The universe is so complex that an Intelligent Designer must have thought about everything first." So lets break this down.

1.) The universe is very complex #true
2.) The universe contains humans, which design things. #true
3.) The things that humans design are also very complex. #true
4.) Anything that is complex requires a designer. #False.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/affirm.htm">This is a logical fallacy. We cannot prove designership one way or the other. Assuming that because watches are complex and have designers, that therefore anything that is complex has a designer, is incorrect. It may or may not be true, but the logic used to get there is wrong.

5.) The universe must have had a designer because it is complex. #False. http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/explan/untest.htm ">There is no way to test this.

In order to make this theory appear completely foolish, how about we use some of its 'logic'(or lack thereof) in order to make it really apparently wrong.

4.) Anything that is complex requires a designer.

5.) Humans are complex and require a designer.

6.) Humans can design things.

7.) Anything that can design things must be complex.

8.) Anything that can design things requires a designer.

9.) Whatever designed the designer had a designer. Whatever designed the designer's designer's designer, had a designer... and so on... into infinity...

It becomes apparent that this theory was based on the assumption that a 'Designer' exists, to justify the belief in this designer. Otherwise it would be much simpler to keep the designer out of it. And if it is a theory indeed intended to justify religous beliefs, then you should keep it out of my secular schools (or at least don't teach it in the science ciriculum), as it isn't even a well constructed theory.

[immoderate]

59. IDs place in the science curriculum.

Is to demonstrate what is NOT science. Judging what is wrong is also an important part of education. I like this because ID has pretensions of not being religious and therefore avoids the problems of teachers being seen as knocking religion.

--IMM

[Swamp Rat]

65. Yes or No: Do you, Finding Rawls, think ID should be taught in schools?

Should faith be taught in school?

Should evolution be taught in religious institutions?

[Finding Rawls]

66. Well

I don't believe that "faith," whatever that is, can be taught period. I'm not sure how it could be attempted. But, if by faith, you mean the practices or ideas of a certain religion, then no, it should not be taught in public schools.

And as to evolution being taught in religious institutions, yes, I would hope that private schools would provide their students with that information.

[Swamp Rat]

67. Intelligent Design is faith

As you said, SCOTUS has already ruled on that. It cannot be taught in public schools.

So what's your point with this thread? State's rights?

[Finding Rawls]

68. I don't believe that I did say that

"As you said, SCOTUS has already ruled on that" That's not what I said

It has ruled on one specific piece of legislation that demanded compliance in its schools. It was not a blanket ban of ID.

[Swamp Rat]

69. So what's your point with this thread?

[Finding Rawls]

70. sorry for not being clear

just a yes or no answer. If you assume the Supreme Court would not rule that ID violates the Constitution (with regards to Church/state issues), should the court be allowed to ban the teaching of ID in schools? Just a yes or no reply to this post.

[Swamp Rat]

71. You answered the wrong question.

What is the ulterior motive for a "HEAD COUNT."

[Finding Rawls]

72. World Domination n/t

[Swamp Rat]

73. You are worried about Bush then?

What does a head count in this post have to do with "World Domination?"

[Finding Rawls]

74. It was a joke

You insinuated that I have some "ulterior motive" behind trying to get a feel for how many people agreed with me. I guess that no one does. But "world domination" was an attempt at humor that flew right by you.

[Swamp Rat]

77. What is the ulterior motive for a "HEAD COUNT?"

Simple question. Ulterior was not used in the pejorative. No need to get upset.

"You insinuated that I have some "ulterior motive" behind trying to get a feel for how many people agreed with me." - I didn't insinuate, I asked you. Agreed with WHAT?

"I guess that no one does." - Then the problem must lie with you since "no one" agrees with you.

"But "world domination" was an attempt at humor that flew right by you." - It "flew by" me because you haven't established report. I do not know you from Adam and thus far your point with this thread eludes me.

You have yet to explain your MOTIVE behind this thread.

[Tyler Durden]

75. You know what?

Asking "When did you stop beating your wife?" Questions is just damn foolish. You have framed your question so that you have to say "YES! The courts can ban teaching..."

I've got news for you: They can't have High School Classes in Socialist Theory. Not in the public ones.

Your premise is nonsense. ID is a "Belief System" as it relies on unprovable and unobservable criteria. Therefore it is NOT science, Therefore it cannot be TAUGHT as Science, unless you go to your local "Fundamentalist Academy."

Using your hot-button word "BAN" invalidates your argument.

ID commits the logical "Fallacy of Explanation" called UNTESTABILITY: the theory which explains cannot be tested, therefore it is not logically based.

[Swamp Rat]

78. Are you talkin' to me?

I agree with you 100%. Please repost so the author of this thread will get the message ASAP. I want to read the response.

Sciencing is inextricable from methodology/testing.

[Tyler Durden]

82. So sorry Rat!

will do.

[Walt Starr]

76. Could anybody who believes ID is science give me a rational explanation

as to why?

I await your post here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2834621

[Cats Against Frist]

79. I VOTE THIS FOR THE FRONT PAGE

This is the comedy thread of the year.

[Finding Rawls]

80. CHRIST

I do not believe in ID
I do not believe that ID is a scientific theory, fact, etc.

I am concerned, however, with the notion that some ideas are so ridiculous and so contrary to the consensus of scientists that they are removed from the debate in schools across the country. This is a general concern. I do not believe that this is a widespread problem right now but I think that ID is a prime example. This is especially a concern for me because it is a controversial topic and the prevention of it being introduced in school curriculum's may seem to some as a form of censorship.

I would like to stress that those who say ID is not scientific in any manner are correct. It can't be tested. I'm not sure if that is a sufficient requirement for its exclusion from school curriculums.

And this is all background to my primary concern that a court can say a subject is unfit to be taught in school. Once again, assuming that the Supreme Court doesn't rule ID unconstitutional as a result of conflict with church/state, I do not believe that they would be justified in doing so. (A note to this argument: ID has been deemed unconstitutional in courts before, and I would agree with those rulings, but they were specific instances in which legislation was passed that demanded it be ruled unconstitutional. I believe that there could be instances in which this wouldn't be true.)

[Tyler Durden]

81. They are ruling that IT IS NOT SCIENCE!!!

That you don't teach comparative religion in SCIENCE CLASS.

This is the crux of the matter. There ARE comparative religion classes in public school; THEY JUST AREN'T IN THE SCIENCE DEPARTMENT.

[Tyler Durden]

83. And ONCE MORE, With FEELING:

You know what?


Asking "When did you stop beating your wife?" Questions is just damn foolish. You have framed your question so that you have to say "YES! The courts can ban teaching..."

I've got news for you: They can't have High School Classes in Socialist Theory. Not in the public ones.

Your premise is nonsense. ID is a "Belief System" as it relies on unprovable and unobservable criteria. Therefore it is NOT science, Therefore it cannot be TAUGHT as Science, unless you go to your local "Fundamentalist Academy."

Using your hot-button word "BAN" invalidates your argument.

ID commits the logical "Fallacy of Explanation" called UNTESTABILITY: the theory which explains cannot be tested, therefore it is not logically based.

[Finding Rawls]

84. OK

I don't believe that's a "when did you stop beating your wife?" question. This is a question completely relevant and important to the country. I think that you're reading the question as you'd like to read it so that you can attack it.

I would like to know where you have found that Socialist Theory can't be taught in high schools. A link? A Case?

[immoderate]

85. I wonder if you've ever seen science taught well.

A really good science teacher leads his/her students to "do science."

They make observations and measurements, form hypotheses, and then test the hypotheses. Science is a method for finding things out, not a set of facts to be learned. That's why people who do science see ID as a circumvention of actual science. There is no censorship. I would ask an educated class, is ID science? You know what the answer would be, and what the court says makes no difference.

--IMM

[Finding Rawls]

86. I don't know how many times I have to say this

I do not believe that ID is science. I'm not even sure that it would be taught in a science class. I do not believe that the courts should be able, not do I think they have the power, to prohibit ID from being taught in schools. I'm not advocating teaching ID in schools. I just don't believe that the courts should be able to prohibit it.

And I'd really like to get a link or a case that refers to the prohibition of socialist theory being taught in schools.

[RetroLounge]

87. You can say it a few more times

and still be wrong.

Feel free.

RL

[immoderate]

88. I was taught socialist theory in school.

In an economics class at Brooklyn Technical High School, in the sixties. We also got capitalism, and fascism. Then I read the "Communist Manifesto" on my own, and then I became a conservative. But that's long ago.

I think you're right. There is no prohibition (in law) about teaching socialism. Those things are protected by academic freedom. In the same light, I can see teachers discussing creationism and intelligent design, but I can't see any real science teacher endorsing it, and the illegality would be an authority forcing a teacher to teach it.

I'd bet that there are many public schools where those are taught in lieu of science with little if any complaint.

--IMM

[Finding Rawls]

90. Well

That's all that I was arguing. Legislation forcing a teacher to teach ID would probably be unconstitutional because the Court would see it as having a religious intent. But the court should not prohibit teachers from teaching it. That's all I was saying.

As the the prohibition of socialist theory, I find that very hard to believe.

[immoderate]

91. How could you teach about the cold war?

Without a discussion of socialist theory. I mean there must still be great teachers and smart students out there, they can read, do research, create reports. Not all education can be phoned in.

--IMM

[immoderate]

93. To fine tune a point.

Nobody can ban discussion of ID or Creation Science. But any good science teacher or text book should make it clear that it is not science and is without merit. and I've said all along these topics should be brought up in science class, as examples of bad science. Learning what's wrong can be as important as learning what's right.

I taught many years, and the only speech that was banned was disrespectful language. That's a reference to people, not ideas or beliefs, those were fair game. My rule was the line from "Road House" -- Always Be Nice!

--IMM

[Disturbed]

89. Yes

Designer=Creator. It is not science. It is a religious concept disquised as "Science" by Creationists. It should be banned from Science Classes of any type.

[Tyler Durden]

94. One more time

The Courts are banning NOTHING.
They are saying that ID is Religion, NOT SCIENCE, which is not prejudicial, and is perfectly rational.

Do you not understand asking loaded questions? Did you take any logic or debate in college? What's with you?

As to Socialist Theory: St. Clair High School in 1970 (MY high school) attempted an informal class in Socialist Theory. Vetoed by the school board. I was there.

Now lose the "ban" bit. No one is "banning" ANYTHING, and you have negated your argument.

[Finding Rawls]

95. You were disrupting the thread the whole way

You:
"I've got news for you: They can't have High School Classes in Socialist Theory. Not in the public ones."

False. Maybe in your local school they did, but your statement attempts to weaken my argument by using a specific instance of a school board making a decision which I never argued against.

You:
"Your premise is nonsense. ID is a "Belief System" as it relies on unprovable and unobservable criteria. Therefore it is NOT science, Therefore it cannot be TAUGHT as Science, unless you go to your local "Fundamentalist Academy.""

You haven't been following my argument. I never argued that ID is a science. Never argued that it is proveable. I never argued that it should be taught as science. This whole thread was designed to discuss whether the courts could BAN the teaching of ID in schools. The word BAN is proper and not detrimental to the argument. That is what the post was meant to discuss. If you don't like the fact that the court declaring that ID can't be taught in schools is, in effect, a ban, then too bad. That's what it would be.

[Tyler Durden]

98. At the risk of being "alerted"

NO, my friend, it is YOU who tie up bandwidth by asking framed questions.

No one ever suggested anything be "Banned," and the ID advocates INSIST it is a SCIENTIFIC ALTERNATIVE TO EVOLUTION, when in fact it is the "foot in the door" for CREATIONIST REVISIONISM.

And you have completely missed the point: if the Fundamentalists insist on trying to teach ID in Science Class and denigrating Evolution, then YES they should be limited under "separation of church and state."

If they want to teach it in Comparative Religion ALONG WITH Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity and Buddhism, then MORE POWER TO THEM.

You really are being obtuse with your ban/no ban, yes/no, up/down baloney. The Fundamentalists want ID TAUGHT AS SCIENCE, AND NO, THEY SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO DO THIS, but BAN? Nope.

[Cheswick2.0]

92. I am both religious and scientific. I believe in evolution as the science

of what God did with creation. But I do not believe we should be teaching ID in schools. It is a violation of the separation of church and state and really is better taught in church and at home.

[sonicx]

96. Yes, the courts should be able to do that...

ID is not science.