Just so we're clear, this is what they're going to be teaching in a public school:



Makes me glad my kids are in Catholic school, where they don't get spoonfed this retarded sh*t. Ironic, isn't it?

Oh God.

Ignoring a 240 year old document to teach kids about a 2000 year old document to build a better future. Fantastic.

"creation science?"

We worry about the Chinese taking over, but they won't even want us as slave labor because we'll be too stupid to work the machines that make the iPad12, unless they use pictographs -- one button a Smiling Jesus, one button a Frowny Jesus.

FSM Approves and looks forward to being taught in IN science classes.

In case you're looking for some good reading here is the opinion of Federal Judge John Jones -- Bush appointee and former Republican candidate for Congress -- that leaves a smoking crater where "Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design" used to be.

Kitzmiller v. Dover (new window)

thomps: "creation science?"

Yeah. They don't seem to understand what the word "science" means. It's obviously not what they think it means.

SONOFAbiatch!

And you guys were worried about a Mormon president.

And so, they succeed in their search
To push off their faith as research.
And yet, I expect
They'd LOUDLY object
To test tubes and Bunsens at CHURCH.

/assholes

She blinded me with creationism!

imapirate: Just so we're clear, this is what they're going to be teaching in a public school:

[farm8.staticflickr.com image 500x375]

Makes me glad my kids are in Catholic school, where they don't get spoonfed this retarded sh*t. Ironic, isn't it?


In all fairness, that display does demand some additional explanation. WTF is that supposed to mean?

To be fair, stuff like this existing in the 21st century does in fact make me doubt the power of evolution and natural selection.

Mr. Coffee Nerves: In case you're looking for some good reading here is the opinion of Federal Judge John Jones -- Bush appointee and former Republican candidate for Congress -- that leaves a smoking crater where "Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design" used to be.

Kitzmiller v. Dover (new window)

It's a strong opinion. I got to meet Judge Jones last year while he gave a talk to a college class my boss (another Judge) teaches. One interesting point was that he specifically noted how much his liberal arts undergraduate background helped him properly decide this case because he had to slog through a pair of geology classes. Also, he said when his wife initially read his draft she told him to reconsider the strong language in the conclusion. So, he thought about it but decided to leave it in because the whole affair had made him angry. He is a true conservative and was upset that these groups would waste so much public money trying to vindicate their own religious preferences. Here is the conclusion and it's a doozy.

H. Conclusion
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.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

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.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. 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.

[8] With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. 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.

*766
To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from 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. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs' rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants' actions. Defendants' actions in violation of Plaintiffs' civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs' attorneys' services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.


Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Dist. 400 F.Supp.2d 707, 765 -766 (M.D.Pa.,2005)

Teach the controversy, baby

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Teach the controversy, baby

MarshHawk: In all fairness, that display does demand some additional explanation. WTF is that supposed to mean?

That sign was in one of the exhibits at the Creation Museum. I went there a couple weeks ago to check it out. Un-farking-believable, what those people believe. There's also a huge exhibit showing how the continents shifted underwater during the 40 days of the great flood.

Quasar: To be fair, stuff like this existing in the 21st century does in fact make me doubt the power of evolution and natural selection.

Well done.

slowclap.gif

imapirate: MarshHawk: In all fairness, that display does demand some additional explanation. WTF is that supposed to mean?

That sign was in one of the exhibits at the Creation Museum. I went there a couple weeks ago to check it out. Un-farking-believable, what those people believe. There's also a huge exhibit showing how the continents shifted underwater during the 40 days of the great flood.

Someone posted that on Fark a few days back and I literally stared in disbelief. I honestly couldn't believe I was reading that correctly and, when I realized I was, I didn't know how to respond.

It's like someone telling you they truly, sincerely believe that 2+2=5, and then making a chart to "prove" it.

Technically, just a committee; but the passage wouldn't surprise me.

The fun part is that it explicitly mentions "creation science", which was already struck down by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard.

Mad Scientist: The bill was only approved by a senate committee. Here's hoping the full senate and then the full Indiana House have enough sense to stop this ridiculous bill.

/those of us in Alabama point and laugh

I wouldn't count on that. They both have Republican majorities.

Wayne 985: It's like someone telling you they truly, sincerely believe that 2+2=5, and then making a chart to "prove" it.

Oh man, that place is full of crap like that. I couldn't believe they let me take pictures. Check out this one:

Quasar: To be fair, stuff like this existing in the 21st century does in fact make me doubt the power of evolution and natural selection.

If you want to feel better, keep in mind that we've come a long way in a short time. Heck, evolution is a relatively new concept in human history. Creationism used to just be "common knowledge."

*sigh*

Antibiotic resistance. Pesticide resistance. Both results of evolution.

Speciation has been observed in the lab and in the wild: fruit flies and pacific robins, both speciated right in front of us, through evolution.

Evolution is a fact. it has been observed, it has made predictions that have come true. Anyone who doesn't understand this at this point is being willfully ignorant.

But who created the giant turtle that carries the world, subtard?

Demonrats: So, you are worried about 2 minutes of class time taken to discuss creationism? How much time can they really spend on it?

"Some religions believe that the world is really old and some believe that it is a few thousand years old and God created everything in a few days to how it is now."

"Then why does everything look really really old?"

"If God created Adam, how old would he be on day 1?"

"He would be one day old."

"How old would he look?"

"He might look like an adult. Maybe 30 then..?"

"That is why it is a faith thing. He may look 30 , but only be 1 day old. The same thought goes into the Earth and that pretty much sums it up."

And if you wanted to use that as a counterexample to science, then okay, but that's the only circumstances under which anything like that could be mentioned in a science class.