Meet Your Neighbors - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Dec 8, 2005

RE: Meet Your Neighbors

Date: Dec 8, 2005

Direct and to the point wrote:

Scientist wrote: I took the poster to be supporting the notion that a college with a religious affilation can "interpretate" their own science. That's not at all what I was saying. I was saying that most strong Southern Baptist schools don't want to be seen as endorsing teaching alternatives to evolution. Those schools would agree with the Sanford A&S position that describes intelligent design as a political movement, not science. That position, quoted directly from the Birmingham News article, is in bold dark letters on my post, and in in quotes so that it couldn't be missed and that I couldn't be misinterpreted.

I went back and reread what you posted more carefully. I see now that I completely reversed the meaning of what you were saying. Sorry for the misinterpretation. I also see why "Yes & No" was so upset with my post. Thanks to both of you for correcting my mistake.

Date: Dec 8, 2005

Scientist wrote:

"Direct and to the Point", this comment makes me think I misinterpreted your previous post. If that is the case please ignore my rant.

I've forgotten it already

Date: Dec 11, 2005

The Clarion Ledger has a debate on Evolution vs. I.D. The link is on it's front page under OPINION, although there is no link on the Opinion page.

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051211/OPINION/51211001/1046

Date: Dec 19, 2005

The "debate" is getting violent.

Kan. Professor Attacked Along Rural Road

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051206/ap_on_re_us/creationism_class

Date: Dec 19, 2005

as I posted earlier

Rich Compassionate Conservative Values

Believes in fully in the teaching of his religion
Is against teaching of evolution
Believes religion has a place in the schools
Is against separation of church and state
Supports "family values"
Is against abortion
Believes things were better in the good old days
Is against secular domination of the arts and entertainment
Believes others need to sacrifice
Is deadset against gun control

One who supports Conservative Values

We are now but a generation or two away from insanity in Western Society. I am not not sure yet whether it is in the past or yet to come

Date: Dec 19, 2005

Who put you in charge of saying what is and is not a "conservative" value?

I think you're just trying to stir the pot.

Date: Dec 19, 2005

I didn't realise there was a live link. Got majorly sidetracked, or sideswiped, or whatever.

Ok, cancel previous post.

New post:

Stand by, you're a jackass. I believe you're just trying to stir the pot.

Date: Dec 20, 2005

LVN, oops wrote:

I didn't realise there was a live link. Got majorly sidetracked, or sideswiped, or whatever. Ok, cancel previous post. New post: Stand by, you're a jackass. I believe you're just trying to stir the pot.

Please educate me, LVN. I read the list and all appear to be what Republicans have backed as "conservatives values". I came in late, so I may have missed something here.

Date: Dec 20, 2005

Judge rules against 'intelligent design' in science class

From Delia Gallagher and Phil Hirschkorn
CNN

Tuesday, December 20, 2005; Posted: 3:01 p.m. EST (20:01 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design/index.html

Date: Dec 20, 2005

End of Debate??? wrote:

Judge rules against 'intelligent design' in science class From Delia Gallagher and Phil HirschkornCNN Tuesday, December 20, 2005; Posted: 3:01 p.m. EST (20:01 GMT) http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design/index.html

Well, this is what I have been saying all along. The judge did a good job.

Date: Dec 20, 2005

The Washington Post has a good summary of the decision here and and link to the decision itself here.
Its a strongly worded judicial opinion. It will be interesting to see if this one goes to the supreme court.

Date: Dec 20, 2005

qwerty wrote:

The Washington Post has a good summary of the decision here and and link to the decision itself here. Its a strongly worded judicial opinion. It will be interesting to see if this one goes to the supreme court.

I heard that since the School Board that started all of this was voted out of office the decision will probably not be contested. Certainly the new Board will not contest it.

Date: Dec 21, 2005

In an article by Thomas Bartlett, The Chronicle also does a nice job of summarizing the decision.

The judge cited the "breathtaking inanity" of the board's decision and the board members' "striking ignorance" about the concept of intelligent design, often called "ID." (Eight board members who supported inserting intelligent design into the science curriculum have since been voted out of office.)

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the board who voted for the ID policy," the judge wrote. "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID policy."

Date: Dec 21, 2005

I heard the Judge's decision was very strong, but I was still very impressed by how much stronger it is when you read the actual ruling. Here are some excerpts starting on page 127.

127

Subsequently, on January 6, 2005, the teachers sent a memo to the Board requesting that they be released from any obligation to read the statement. (36:97 (Linker)). The memo provides, in relevant part, as follows:

“You have indicated that students may ‘opt-out’ of this

portion [the statement read to students at the beginning of

the biology evolution unit] of the class and that they will

be excused and monitored by an administrator. We

respectfully exercise our right to ‘opt-out’ of the

statement portion of the class. We will relinquish the

classroom to an administrator and we will monitor our

own students. This request is based upon our considered

opinion that reading the statement violates our

responsibilities as professional educators as set forth in

the Code of Professional Practice and Conduct for

Educators[.]

INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT BIOLOGY.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT AN ACCEPTED

SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

I believe that if I as the classroom teacher read the

required statement, my students will inevitably (and understandably) believe that Intelligent Design is a valid

scientific theory, perhaps on par with the theory of evolution. That is not true. To refer the students to ‘Of Pandas and People’ as if it is a scientific resource breaches my ethical obligation to provide them with scientific knowledge that is supported by recognized scientific proof or theory.”

…

r. Defendants Presented No Convincing Evidence that

They were Motived by Any Valid Secular Purpose

Although Defendants attempt to persuade this Court that each Board member who voted for the biology curriculum change did so for the secular purposed of improving science education and to exercise critical thinking skills, their contentions are simply irreconcilable with the record evidence. Their asserted purposes are a sham, and they are accordingly unavailing, for the reasons that follow.

...

Although as noted Defendants have consistently asserted that the ID Policy was enacted for the secular purposes of improving science education and encouraging students to exercise critical thinking skills, the Board took none of the steps that school officials would take if these stated goals had truly been their objective. The Board consulted no scientific materials. The Board contacted no scientists or scientific organizations. The Board failed to consider the views of the District’s science teachers. The Board relied solely on legal advice from two organizations with demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions, the Discovery Institute and the TMLC. Moreover, Defendants’ asserted secular purpose of improving science education is belied by the fact that most if not all of the Board members who voted in favor of the biology curriculum change conceded that they still do not know, nor have they ever known, precisely what ID is. To assert a secular purpose against this backdrop is ludicrous.

Finally, although Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony, such a strategy constitutes additional strong evidence of improper purpose under the first prong of the Lemon test. As exhaustively detailed herein, the thought leaders on the Board made it their considered purpose to inject some form of creationism into the science classrooms, and by the dint of their personalities and persistence they were able to pull the majority of the Board along in their collective wake.

Date: Dec 21, 2005

Reject Robertson, intelligent design

http://clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051221/OPINION/512210362/1007

Date: Dec 22, 2005

H.A. Poll @ 11:20 a.m.

POLL

Do you agree with a federal judge’s decision that Intelligent Design should not be taught in public schools?

Total votes cast: 37

Date: Dec 22, 2005

The question of Intelligent Design aside, I'd be interested in a poll as to whether or not federal judges should be setting the curriculum of supposedly state-controlled schools.

Date: Dec 22, 2005

LIttle old lady wrote:

The question of Intelligent Design aside, I'd be interested in a poll as to whether or not federal judges should be setting the curriculum of supposedly state-controlled schools.

Didn't you read the finding, Old Lady? The judge didn't "set the curriculum". Rather the evidence clearly and strongly shows that a small group of religious zealots DID set a RELIGIOUS CURRICULUM by trying to teach a non-scientific, religious theory of Creationism already shot down by the Constitution. It also showed the "religious" people trying to do this lied to the court.

Why are you trying to spin the facts to protect these liars? They are giving Christians a bad name.

Date: Dec 22, 2005

Not trying to spin anything, RC. Just possibly misunderstood, but I saw two separate issues. Not a proponent of ID whatsoever.

Date: Dec 22, 2005

LIttle old lady wrote:

Not trying to spin anything, RC. Just possibly misunderstood, but I saw two separate issues. Not a proponent of ID whatsoever.

Little Old Lady, I'm sorry if I misread your post. Can you give us examples of "federal judges setting the curriculum of supposedly state-controlled schools"? Then we can have the discussion.

My first response was based on the fact that what you stated was what the "Creation Science" and I.D. people have been putting out as propaganda for some time. That caused my knee-jerk reaction. I will wait for your examples to be listed.

Merry Christmas

Date: Dec 22, 2005

It sounded to me like you got an apology? And what's with your name, "Real Christian" -- that's almost as bad as the people you're against!

Date: Dec 22, 2005

LVN wrote:

It sounded to me like you got an apology? And what's with your name, "Real Christian" -- that's almost as bad as the people you're against!

Good point, LVN. Every Christian considers themselves "Real Christians", so you have to identify me by my actions (or post).

I did think a discussion about judges and school curriculum would be interesting if such an issue exists.

Date: Dec 22, 2005

I suspect that L.O.L. realized what a can of worms that was and went to make a cup of tea and crochet something.

Date: Dec 22, 2005

The Hattiesburg American Poll results @ 4:50 p.m. :

POLL

Do you agree with a federal judge’s decision that Intelligent Design should not be taught in public schools?

Total votes cast: 155

Date: Dec 22, 2005

Poll wrote:

The Hattiesburg American Poll results @ 4:50 p.m. : POLL Do you agree with a federal judge’s decision that Intelligent Design should not be taught in public schools? Total votes cast: 155

I'm shocked that many people, who know how to use computers, still think I.D. should be taught as science, against the opinions of scientists. I hope they don't get ideas on what should be taught in medical schools.

I wonder if these are the same people who wrote Letters to the Editor last year backing Thames, and telling faculty how universities should be run like businesses?

Date: Dec 22, 2005

Poll wrote:

H.A. Poll @ 11:20 a.m. POLL Do you agree with a federal judge’s decision that Intelligent Design should not be taught in public schools? Total votes cast: 37

so this implies those who are have nothing better to do during the day other than surfing believe in intelligent design?

Date: Dec 22, 2005

It's getting closer at 7:15 p.m. Maybe some are voting twice?

POLL

Do you agree with a federal judge’s decision that Intelligent Design should not be taught in public schools?

Total votes cast: 195

Date: Dec 22, 2005

What about having ID taught in say a religion class or maybe a philosophy class? Seems more where it belongs and exposing students to the idea itself -- well exposure to ideas is not a bad thing.

Date: Dec 22, 2005

They don't have religion or philosophy classes in public school.