Derniers articles et news parus sur le tres bon site (que la plupart d'entre nous connaissent peut-etre deja) '
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus The case of
Kitzmiller et. al. v. Dover is over.
In October, 2004, the Dover Area School Board of Directors decided that ninth grade biology students would be introduced to the idea of "intelligent design" alongside evolution in the science classroom. By the end of 2004, several parents filed a lawsuit challenging the consititutional validity of this action. The trial began at the end of September, 2005 and over the course of six weeks, intelligent design was put to the test.
The verdict has arrived.
The Honorable U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones:
"After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six-week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents', as well as Defendents' argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum.
"Moreover, ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to forment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.
"To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true "scientific" alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological agument, but that it is not science."
"Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."
Hear! Hear!
"Evolution is one of the best-tested principles of modern science. All Americans who believe in the First Amendment and the integrity of science are gratified by Judge Jones’s ruling, that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design in biology classes. Our students deserve the best science education that they can get, not watered down by religion masking as science" said Professor Paul Kurtz, Chairman of the Center for Inquiry in Amherst, New York.
CSICOP would like to thank and congratulate the plaintiffs in the case, the expert witnesses for the plaintiffs, the National Center for Science Education, and the number of activists around the world who are doing their part to keep pseudoscience at bay. A special thanks goes out to CSICOP Fellows and Skeptical Inquirer contributors, Barbara Forrest, Kenneth Miller, and Robert Pennock for their invaluable testimony in the Dover trial.
"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... We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom," states Judge John Jones.
To read the complete 139 page document, which contains an excellent summary of the treatment of evolution in the U.S. legal system, the changes made by creationists through time, a more detailed analysis of why intelligent design is not science and has no place within the science classroom, and the contributions of expert witnesses such as John Haught, Kenneth Miller, and Barbara Forrest, visit here:
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller ... er_342.pdfKeep an eye on CSICOP's Intelligent Design Watch over the holidays as there is bound to be plenty of reading on this case in the weeks ahead:
http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/Also New on The Intelligent Watch Site:
The Mousetrap By John Allen Paulos
The theory of intelligent design, the purportedly more scientific descendant of creation science, rejects Darwin's theory of evolution as being unable to explain the complexity of life. How, ask its supporters, can biological phenomena such as the clotting of blood have arisen just by chance? A key supporter likens the "irreducible complexity" of such phenomena to the irreducible complexity of a mousetrap. If one piece is missing - spring, metal platform or board - it is useless. The implicit suggestion is that all the parts of a mousetrap would have had to come into being at once, an impossibility unless there were an intelligent designer. Design proponents argue that what's true for the mousetrap is all the more true for complex biological phenomena. If any of the 20 or so proteins involved in blood clotting is absent, clotting doesn't occur. So, the creationist argument goes, these proteins must have all been brought into being at once by a designer.
But the theory of evolution does explain the evolution of complex biological organisms and phenomena, and the argument from design, which dates from the 18th century, has been decisively refuted. Rehashing the refutation is not my goal. Those who reject evolution are usually immune to such arguments.
To Read More of This Article Visit:
http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/John Allen Paulos is an extensively kudized author, popular public speaker, and monthly columnist for ABCNews.com (archived or current, copyright JAP) and the Guardian. Professor of mathematics at Temple, a state university in Philadelphia, he earned his Ph.D. in the subject from the University of Wisconsin.
His writings include Innumeracy (NY Times bestseller for 18 weeks), A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper (on the readers' list of the Random House Modern Library's compilation of the 100 best nonfiction books of the century **), Once Upon a Number (chosen by the LA Times as one of the best books of 1998), and the just released A Mathematician Plays the Stock Market (reviews at left, a brief tenant on the BusinessWeek bestsellers list). He's also written scholarly papers on probability, logic, and the philosophy of science as well as scores of OpEds, book reviews, and articles in publications such as the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, the Nation, Discover, the American Scholar, and the London Review of Books.
Connexion
M’enregistrer
FAQ
Rechercher
Membres
