Judiciarchy (1 Viewer)

[Blizzard Warrior]

I havent seen this term used by many people, but i felt like bringing people's attention to it. I dont know if i am the only one hear that has noticed the Judical activism of legleslating from the bench. Recent example:

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday against parents who sued their local school district after their elementary-age children were given a sexually charged survey, saying there is "no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children."

The three-judge panel of the full court further ruled that parents "have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."


Six parents sued the Palmdale, Calif., School District after finding out their kids had been asked a series of sexual questions in class. They included asking the children about the frequency of:


Touching my private parts too much
Thinking about having sex

Thinking about touching other people's private parts

Thinking about sex when I don't want to

Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside

Not trusting people because they might want sex

Getting scared or upset when I think about sex

Having sex feelings in my body

Can't stop thinking about sex

Getting upset when people talk about sex

Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote the unanimous opinion for the court [.pdf document]. Referring to the fact the parents lost their case at the district-court level, Reinhardt wrote:


We agree [with the previous ruling], and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students. Finally, we hold that the defendants' actions were rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. [emphasis Reinhardt's].(http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47195)

ok so basically they have siad that parenthood is unconstitutional, luckily congress i belive has over turned this decision. by the way what do people think of the term "boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem" [good justice is broad jurisdiction]?

 

[Engimo]

ok so basically they have siad that parenthood is unconstitutional, luckily congress i belive has over turned this decision. by the way what do people think of the term "boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem" [good justice is broad jurisdiction]?

No, that is not what they are saying at all. They are saying that there is no fundamental right for parents to control what schools are teaching their children, which is a good thing. That is, parents cannot demand that they have what they want taught in the schools.

Parents, by and large, are not education experts, and they often have personal or religious bias that makes them the wrong people to be deciding how the schools should operate. They are, of course, more than welcome to withdraw their children from school and home-school or private-school them, but I see no reason for publicly funded schools to pander to the personal religious/moral interests of the parents of their students - it's simply not their job. The job of a school is to educate.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

[MOD MODE]
Moved to Today's News
[/MOD MODE]

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

No, that is not what they are saying at all. They are saying that there is no fundamental right for parents to control what schools are teaching their children, which is a good thing. That is, parents cannot demand that they have what they want taught in the schools.


Parents, by and large, are not education experts, and they often have personal or religious bias that makes them the wrong people to be deciding how the schools should operate. They are, of course, more than welcome to withdraw their children from school and home-school or private-school them, but I see no reason for publicly funded schools to pander to the personal religious/moral interests of the parents of their students - it's simply not their job. The job of a school is to educate.

School boards have a lot of say what children get taught in schools, but if I disagree with what a public school is teaching, one small little thing, then don’t I have the right to withhold my child from that ONE survey or that ONE lesson in class? Why should I go through all the trouble of home schooling AND/OR private schooling? Also, don’t you think that asking 1st graders is pushing the envelope when it comes to sexual questions like these? There is really no educational purpose for the surveys, and lets look at the case solely; and my first objection is, since when are surveys required to be given ESPECIALLY when you include the factors of the content and the age group considered, also parents are really demanding a change in what is taught, they simply want to withdraw kids of taking a survey.

 

[Engimo]

School boards have a lot of say what children get taught in schools, but if I disagree with what a public school is teaching, one small little thing, then don’t I have the right to withhold my child from that ONE survey or that ONE lesson in class? Why should I go through all the trouble of home schooling AND/OR private schooling? Also, don’t you think that asking 1st graders is pushing the envelope when it comes to sexual questions like these? There is really no educational purpose for the surveys, and lets look at the case solely; and my first objection is, since when are surveys required to be given ESPECIALLY when you include the factors of the content and the age group considered, also parents are really demanding a change in what is taught, they simply want to withdraw kids of taking a survey.

I'm not talking about this case specifically, I'm talking about the general outcome of the case - the precedent that it sets. And it seems, as a result of this ruling, that parents don't have the right to remove their children from a class or whatever (although if they make a big enough fuss about it, I'm sure the school would let them). It seems like a good thing, it will remove the objections of parents of the teaching of Evolution and such in science classrooms, as they have no legal ground to stand on.

Don't get me wrong, it doesn't seem like this is really an appropriate thing to be asking 1st graders, but I'd be pretty surprised if anything like it every happened at the school again, from fear of higher-up and faculty backlash. There is accountability in bureaucracies.

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

I'm not talking about this case specifically, I'm talking about the general outcome of the case - the precedent that it sets. And it seems, as a result of this ruling, that parents don't have the right to remove their children from a class or whatever (although if they make a big enough fuss about it, I'm sure the school would let them). It seems like a good thing, it will remove the objections of parents of the teaching of Evolution and such in science classrooms, as they have no legal ground to stand on.

Don't get me wrong, it doesn't seem like this is really an appropriate thing to be asking 1st graders, but I'd be pretty surprised if anything like it every happened at the school again, from fear of higher-up and faculty backlash. There is accountability in bureaucracies.

Well i dont know, i mean the precent is basically nufflifed with the invalidnation of the case by congress, however students are required to learn so much, and when a school forces students to take a survery on controversial material....i mean that is serouisly pushing its duties. Besides objections to teaching evolution only go so far, i mean in the name of fairness and openmindedness we should be learning multiple theories INCLUDING evolution, but evolution is a science, where as a sexual health survery isnt really absolute hard sceince that the genereal polulace (including 1st graders, lol) schould be required to know. btw i am glad taht u seem to have some sense of moral guidance

 

[Engimo]

Besides objections to teaching evolution only go so far, i mean in the name of fairness and openmindedness we should be learning multiple theories INCLUDING evolution, but evolution is a science, where as a sexual health survery isnt really absolute hard sceince that the genereal polulace (including 1st graders, lol) schould be required to know.

If there were legitimate scientific alternative theories to evolution, they would be taught. Alas, no such alternatives exist.

Like I said, I don't think this survey was really the right thing to be doing, but I like the idea that parents don't have vast power over decision of the curriculum of their children, because they are really not the best judges of it.

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

If there were legitimate scientific alternative theories to evolution, they would be taught. Alas, no such alternatives exist.

Like I said, I don't think this survey was really the right thing to be doing, but I like the idea that parents don't have vast power over decision of the curriculum of their children, because they are really not the best judges of it.

I would love to argue alternative theroies to evolution but this would be an innapporpiate thread. I dont know if the goverment should be the ultimate best judges of what chilren get educated in non-stanardized classes. i.e. health, I mean there comes a point where people are simply to young to be taking a sex ed quiz, but back to hte point. Then the court decides that not only are these parents wrong they have no fundamental right to decided what their kids get taught.

"Anyone who wonders why pro-family organizations like ours have been so concerned about activist courts only has to look at this case," Earll said in a statement. "The 9th Circuit did more than rule against parents who were upset that their elementary-school-aged children were being asked explicit questions about sex in class. They told all parents they have no right to protest what public schools tell their children."

Continued Earll: "What the court did here is declare parenthood unconstitutional. It's long been the liberal view that it takes a village to raise a child – but never before have the 'villagers' been elevated, as a matter of law, above mothers and fathers." -http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47195

 

[steen]

Besides objections to teaching evolution only go so far, i mean in the name of fairness and openmindedness we should be learning multiple theories INCLUDING evolution, but evolution is a science,

Exactly. So are you talking about teaching non-science in a science class?

 

[steen]

I would love to argue alternative theroies to evolution but this would be an innapporpiate thread.

Fret not:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=6710

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

Depends what you define as non-science, there are many respected scientists that have supported and found evidence in favor of I.D. Also many, many medical doctors have objections to certain parts of evolutionary science. Now micro evolution is not only proveable, but also discussed in the bible im pretty sure. The problem is that macro evolution says that people desended from apes. Now it depends what your definiation of a human is (homo sapian) and an ape or primates is. Now also I could belive in evolution if i can belive in the following:

God created Adam and Eve
God created the earth
supernatural intervention

Unfortunatly evolutionists often try to refute those 3 basic principles, and i believe that the Catholic apparoach to the matter is (even though i am not catholic) that people have to be bale to trace eveything back to God's glory, so ytou can belive in evolution if you belive that God created evolutioanry laws and that he can intervene and trancend those laws at his will.

 

[steen]

Depends what you define as non-science,

Answers not derived through the Scientific Method. What do you mean with "depends on" No, it doesn't. Science is exploration through the application of the Scientific Method. That is part of how science is defined.

there are many respected scientists that have supported and found evidence in favor of I.D.

nope.

Also many, many medical doctors have objections to certain parts of evolutionary science.

Really? "many, many"? And medical doctors have all this time to explore evolutionary biology?

Now micro evolution is not only proveable, but also discussed in the bible im pretty sure.

What do you mean with "micro-evolution?

The problem is that macro evolution

What is macro-evolution?

says that people desended from apes.

I am not aware of ANY scientific finding showing this. NOTHING in the Scientific theory of Evolution says that humans evolved from apes.

But then, are you saying that the human species was "designed" instead?

Now it depends what your definiation of a human is (homo sapian)

There is that silly hedging again. Todays humans are Homo sapienes sapiens. There is no "depends on."

and an ape or primates is.

What a primate is, that has nothing to dow ith the creationist lying misrepresentation of humans evoplving from apes. As for what apes are, that also is defined.

By the way, Homo sapiens sapiens is defined as an ape.

Now also I could belive in evolution if i can belive in the following:

God created Adam and Eve
God created the earth
supernatural intervention

Really? Why does "belief" in one hinge on "belief" in the other?

And what does Evolution have to do with "belief" anyway? It depends on the data and the evaluation through the application of the Scientific Method. Didn't you know this?

Unfortunatly evolutionists often try to refute those 3 basic principles,

No, they don't. Your misrepresentation is duly noted.

(Or are you using 'evolutionist" as some new weird entity?)

and i believe that the Catholic apparoach to the matter is (even though i am not catholic) that people have to be bale to trace eveything back to God's glory, so ytou can belive in evolution if you belive that God created evolutioanry laws and that he can intervene and trancend those laws at his will.

And I don't care about what the catholic Church or any non-science group says about science. I care about what the data and evidence shows.

 

[Busta]

No, that is not what they are saying at all. They are saying that there is no fundamental right for parents to control what schools are teaching their children, which is a good thing. That is, parents cannot demand that they have what they want taught in the schools.

Parents, by and large, are not education experts, and they often have personal or religious bias that makes them the wrong people to be deciding how the schools should operate. They are, of course, more than welcome to withdraw their children from school and home-school or private-school them, but I see no reason for publicly funded schools to pander to the personal religious/moral interests of the parents of their students - it's simply not their job. The job of a school is to educate.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.
Are you saying that if a parent has any bias, in any way, to any degree, that this disqualifies them as an authority on their children's education?
I mien, if I have any kind of bias, you would have me barred from the P.T.A.?
If I think that public schools should receve increased funding because my "personal/moral or religious bias" predisposes me towards supporting the community, thus, by proxy, the school, then I should have no say?

The state certainly has a bias (national patriotism and civic duty....for starters), so this would disqualify the state from having a say as well.

Or are you saying that teachers do not have any bias at all?

I'm just not understanding how you are taking People out of *We The People*.

It smacks of communism/socialism.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teacher's associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

Some people out there tend to believe that such ideologies are gone, but if this is true, then why are they still here?

 

[Engimo]

I'm not sure what you are saying here.
Are you saying that if a parent has any bias, in any way, to any degree, that this disqualifies them as an authority on their children's education?
I mien, if I have any kind of bias, you would have me barred from the P.T.A.?

That is not what I am saying at all. The P.T.A. is an entirely legitimate outlet for parents to voice their concerns about their childrens' schooling, but the final decision for what goes into the curriculum should not rest in their hands - it should fall to those who know what an effective education is comprised of and the laws regarding education.

If I think that public schools should receve increased funding because my "personal/moral or religious bias" predisposes me towards supporting the community, thus, by proxy, the school, then I should have no say?

Straw man. I'm talking about personal ideals being used as the basis for curriculum and policy decisions, not about entirely unrelated civic matters.

The state certainly has a bias (national patriotism and civic duty....for starters), so this would disqualify the state from having a say as well.

Or are you saying that teachers do not have any bias at all?

I'm just not understanding how you are taking People out of *We The People*.

You seem to be extending my comment about bias into all matters of things that it was not intended to address. Let me give you an example of what I am talking about:

If parents want, say, Intelligent Design taught in their schools, it doesn't matter. I don't care if every single parent in the town wants it taught, there is absolutely no way that it should be taught. The state is meant to be secular and has an obligation to convey factual, scientific information in its' science classrooms. In this instance, the religious bias of the parents is overriding their rationality. If they actually sat down and considered the law and the aims of our school system, they would see that what they are campaigning for is not valid. They, in this case, are not the right people to be deciding the curriculum of the school.

That is the bias I am talking about, you see. Parents campaigning against Gay/Straight Alliances because they are personally offended, wanting prayer in schools, etc.

It smacks of communism/socialism.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teacher's associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

Some people out there tend to believe that such ideologies are gone, but if this is true, then why are they still here?

While I'm no Communist, #41 sounds like a pretty good idea to me. Parents often do have a suppresive influence over children, impeding their ability to critically reason through the imposition of religious or personal dogma. I'm sure that parental racism at least helps the persistence of racism in America.

 

[steen]

I'm not sure what you are saying here.
Are you saying that if a parent has any bias, in any way, to any degree, that this disqualifies them as an authority on their children's education?.....

Hmm, so you are saying that when parents are pushing lying non-science on the Science teacher, then they should be listened to, f.ex.?

 

[hipsterdufus]

I havent seen this term used by many people, but i felt like bringing people's attention to it. I dont know if i am the only one hear that has noticed the Judical activism of legleslating from the bench. Recent example:

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday against parents who sued their local school district after their elementary-age children were given a sexually charged survey, saying there is "no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children."

The three-judge panel of the full court further ruled that parents "have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."


Six parents sued the Palmdale, Calif., School District after finding out their kids had been asked a series of sexual questions in class. They included asking the children about the frequency of:


Touching my private parts too much
Thinking about having sex

Thinking about touching other people's private parts

Thinking about sex when I don't want to

Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside

Not trusting people because they might want sex

Getting scared or upset when I think about sex

Having sex feelings in my body

Can't stop thinking about sex

Getting upset when people talk about sex

Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote the unanimous opinion for the court [.pdf document]. Referring to the fact the parents lost their case at the district-court level, Reinhardt wrote:


We agree [with the previous ruling], and hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students. Finally, we hold that the defendants' actions were rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. [emphasis Reinhardt's].(http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47195)

ok so basically they have siad that parenthood is unconstitutional, luckily congress i belive has over turned this decision. by the way what do people think of the term "boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem" [good justice is broad jurisdiction]?

This story is odd. As an educator myself, it seems to me that this was a misguided attempt to verify suspected abuse of a child in the class, without singling that child out.

Absolutely parents shouldn't be able to dictate what is taught in class. The Dover ID case is an excellent example of parents - through infiltration of school boards run amok.

 

[Busta]

That is not what I am saying at all. The P.T.A. is an entirely legitimate outlet for parents to voice their concerns about their childrens' schooling, but the final decision for what goes into the curriculum should not rest in their hands - it should fall to those who know what an effective education is comprised of and the laws regarding education...........

I was trying to understand your position, not posing an argument, so there is no straw-man.

I want I.D. in the science class because it is a scientific subject, no more religious then evolution. There are a number of holes in evolution as it pertains to the origin of the species, and I believe that excluding scientific evidence which supports I.D. as a valid scientific theory is propagandic, arrogant and ignorant.
("Arrogance and ignorance go hand-in-hand")
Metallica - Holier Than Thou
I love old-school Metallica......anyway...

Since my school neglected to teach the scientific theory of I.D., I am now forced to homeschool myself on the subject.
As a result, I am not yet ready to argue I.D.

If teaching the theory of I.D. violates the Wall of Separation, then so does teaching the theory of evolution (Scientology).

As to same-sex 'marriage, I have a sound legal, religiously sterile argument against it.

Mandatory prayer in public school is one thing, and I do not support that.
Banning prayer in public school is something ells entirely, and is unconstitutional (First Amendment).

Unless a child is in danger, taking a child away from his/her parents is unconstitutional.
Parenting is a Fundamental Right.
This position was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Troxel et vir. v. Granville, 530 US 57, 67 (2000). The Court stated that parenting is a fundamental right protected by the US Constitution. In Troxel, the court wrote: "The liberty interest at issue in this case -- the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children -- is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court."

Even if I were to teach my sons that God folded his arms, wiggled his nose and blinked the universe into existence, they are not in danger, and thus my fundamental Constitutional right "in the care, custody, and control" of my children superseeds the state's intrest in them as citizens.

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

Ever heard of Michael Behe? I recall reading in a magazine that 58% of medical doctors something that flies in the face of evolution, ill have to find the magazine and look it up for you. Like over a period of time species slowly change to adapt to their environment and variations in different species occur. I am surprised that you have never heard of the terms micro and macro evolution, but then again not many people use it. Macro evolution is the idea that in a chemical pool in ideal conditions evolved protein molecules which eventually evolved into singular celled organisms and which in turn evolved in multi cellular organisms et cetera. I do believe that evolution teaches that humans and apes share a common lineage, thus a common ancestors so like ogn. A evolved into 3 variations ogn. B. C. and D. B is like gorillas C. is chimpanzees, and D. are humans (homo sapiens sepia). Well if you think about it a lot of evolution is faith in a sense, I know your going to hate this, but there are LARGE gaps in the fossil record, and wholes in the theory (notice how it’s called a theory) and animals that defy evolution. I don’t know any evolutionists who believe this, but then again I always try to avoid labels because they are very general and you get different ‘sects’ in a label. You are aware that many scientific principles were derived and supported from the Catholic church, as a matter of fact modern education as we know it wouldn’t be around if it weren’t for the Catholic church. By the way I found this:

The Catholic Church has always taught that "no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

As the Catechism puts it, "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery. -www.catholic.com

 

[Engimo]

I want I.D. in the science class because it is a scientific subject, no more religious then evolution. There are a number of holes in evolution as it pertains to the origin of the species, and I believe that excluding scientific evidence which supports I.D. as a valid scientific theory is propagandic, arrogant and ignorant.

That statement is entirely irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if the Theory of Evolution were entirely disproven or did not exist at all, that does not provide any positive evidence for Intelligent Design. The idea that it does rests upon an appeal to ignorance and a false dilemma.

No one is excluding scientific evidence that supports I.D. because firstly, there is none, and secondly because the idea of I.D. is fundamentally fallacious.

Since my school neglected to teach the scientific theory of I.D., I am now forced to homeschool myself on the subject.
As a result, I am not yet ready to argue I.D.

There is no scientific theory of I.D., as it does not meet any of the criteria required for it to be considered a scientific theory. It is not falsifiable, it has no scientific evidence at all, and it fails to make any predictions.

If teaching the theory of I.D. violates the Wall of Separation, then so does teaching the theory of evolution (Scientology).

I don't think you know what Scientology is, maybe you should look that one up. Regardless, that is not true. There is an inherently religious motivation and aspect to Intelligent Design, Evolutionary Theory has no such parts.

As to same-sex 'marriage, I have a sound legal, religiously sterile argument against it.

That's irrelevant to the conversation, and I didn't even bring same-sex marriage up. I mentioned Gay/Straight Alliances which are clubs in High Schools that give counsel and support to gay students.

Unless a child is in danger, taking a child away from his/her parents is unconstitutional.
Parenting is a Fundamental Right.
This position was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Troxel et vir. v. Granville, 530 US 57, 67 (2000). The Court stated that parenting is a fundamental right protected by the US Constitution. In Troxel, the court wrote: "The liberty interest at issue in this case -- the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children -- is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court."

This decision is about the physical rights of parenting, custodial rights - not educational rights. In fact, that is what this decision is all about. It's saying that parents do not have a fundamental right to control their childrens' education.

Even if I were to teach my sons that God folded his arms, wiggled his nose and blinked the universe into existence, they are not in danger, and thus my fundamental Constitutional right "in the care, custody, and control" of my children superseeds the state's intrest in them as citizens.

Yes, you are more than welcome to teach that to your children, but you have absolutely no right to attempt to impose the teaching of that upon other students of the school, or to ask for special considerations that would undermine the educational system or the education of other students.

 

[Engimo]

Ever heard of Michael Behe? I recall reading in a magazine that 58% of medical doctors something that flies in the face of evolution, ill have to find the magazine and look it up for you. Like over a period of time species slowly change to adapt to their environment and variations in different species occur. I am surprised that you have never heard of the terms micro and macro evolution, but then again not many people use it. Macro evolution is the idea that in a chemical pool in ideal conditions evolved protein molecules which eventually evolved into singular celled organisms and which in turn evolved in multi cellular organisms et cetera. I do believe that evolution teaches that humans and apes share a common lineage, thus a common ancestors so like ogn. A evolved into 3 variations ogn. B. C. and D. B is like gorillas C. is chimpanzees, and D. are humans (homo sapiens sepia). Well if you think about it a lot of evolution is faith in a sense, I know your going to hate this, but there are LARGE gaps in the fossil record, and wholes in the theory (notice how it’s called a theory) and animals that defy evolution. I don’t know any evolutionists who believe this, but then again I always try to avoid labels because they are very general and you get different ‘sects’ in a label.

Michael Behe's book has been debunked many times over, and he is generally considered a hack of a biologist by the scientific community. Are you aware of the fact that there has not been a single peer-reviewed paper published that provides any evidence for Intelligent Design? Believe me when I say there is no conspiracy, there simply is no evidence. The idea of the argument is fallacious by nature.

Like I said in the previous post, challenges to Evolutionary Theory don't provide evidence for Intelligent Design, they are just challenges to Evolutionary Theory. Find "holes" in Evolution as often as you like, all that shows is that the theory is flawed - the worst you could do is disprove it. If Evolution did not exist, Intelligent Design would still not be a viable scientific theory. Talking about Evolution is irrelevant to the consideration of whether or not Intelligent Design is scientific.

 

[Busta]

Hmm, so you are saying that when parents are pushing lying non-science on the Science teacher, then they should be listened to, f.ex.?

You're so cute, steen.
I love you.

Waite, waite, let me guess......."Dishonest Pro. I.D. revisionist linguistic hyperbole, sophistry, and intellectual enslavement of children".....right?

I ask some one ells a question so that I understand what they are saying and you think I posing an argument.

But to answer your question, no. When parents wish to push lying non-science on the Science teacher, they should not be listened to.
When parents wish to push secular, logical science on the science teacher, then they should be listened to.

I believe that the fatal blunder of those who wish for I.D. to be in the science class made recently, is that they wanted a religious element in the curriculum. Within an I.D. curriculum, the question of "who" or "what" the intelligence is should be left open for the student to answer personally.
Only scientific evidence which supports an intelligent design should be presented.

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

Great point Busta, and that is EXACTLY why the case is mostly likely en route to be over turned. by either the eitire 9th circuit OR the supreme court. And i belive that the argument was based on te very case that Butsa is refering to. Also just a little statistic here: out of all the appeals courts in the U.S. the 9th circuit court of appeals has been overturned the most...i wonder why?

 

[Engimo]

Great point Busta, and that is EXACTLY why the case is mostly likely en route to be over turned. by either the eitire 9th circuit OR the supreme court. And i belive that the argument was based on te very case that Butsa is refering to. Also just a little statistic here: out of all the appeals courts in the U.S. the 9th circuit court of appeals has been overturned the most...i wonder why?

Because they get the most cases, silly. More cases means more supreme court decisions.

Percentage-wise, they have the 4th highest rate of cases being overturned, with the 1st, 2nd, and 10th circuit courts having 100% overturn rates. The 9th only has 76%, which is not bad compared to a national rate of 77%.

 

[Busta]

This story is odd. As an educator myself, it seems to me that this was a misguided attempt to verify suspected abuse of a child in the class, without singling that child out.

Absolutely parents shouldn't be able to dictate what is taught in class. The Dover ID case is an excellent example of parents - through infiltration of school boards run amok.

The big problem came when the school sent home a list of the questions in the survey to the parents, pending signed parental consent; but the school deliberately withheld the sex-based questions.

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

It has a very liberal reputaion you cant deny that, and fourth place is NOT that good a rank, by the way i would like a refernce for taht information.