Executive Summary:
The United States population is a diverse community. We have economic, social, political, religious and ethnic differences, and our government has a duty to its people to homogenize the law we all live by, to encourage domestic tranquility. That tranquility is largely enforceable by ensuring that the behaviors we prescribe by law, don’t slight any individual right to free speech, assembly, or religion (not a complete list). It is not the government’s job to ensure that my opinion about stuff has any more weight than your opinion about stuff. When it comes to the topic of God, we must all confess that opinion (faith) is king.

The issue Kitzmiller brings to the table:

There are those of us in this society that believe we don’t have a place at the table, when it comes to teaching our children about the origins of man and the universe we live in. Our children are told they can’t bring their Bibles to school, they can’t talk about God in the class room, and that the world wasn’t created in six literal days by an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent God, but was actually formed by a super quantum singularity of infinite density over 10 million-trillion years ago. Some parents find the government’s support of this way of looking at things to be infringing on their constitutional right to freedom of religion. They say their children are being forced by the secularists in our schools to start life with the view that their parents are lying to them about God.

Dover, Pennsylvania - Tammy Kitzmiller, v. Dover Area School District

Let me first say that Wikipedia is all over this story. Well documented and well researched. The issues are there, plain and in the open. I am going to assume that you can use this resource to learn about what is the subject of this discussion, rather than cut and paste a whole bunch of text I didn’t write.

Numerous posts in this forum show that many of our members care deeply about the separation of church and state.

What I hope to accomplish here is to explore what Kitzmiller's weaknesses and strengths are in the minds of the American people. If you are an Intelligent Design advocate, why do you think that Kitzmiller failed you? If you are an evolutionists, why do you think Kitzmiller was significant in the evolution of our national school curriculum? The essence of this debate should focus on impact. Not on how clever you can quip the next guy or gal. My hope is to take this discussion up the evolutionary latter a few notches. (see my corresponding poll, when I publish it)

Let the Debate Begin

My opinion is that Kitzmiller did the ID community a great service, and that it was not a loss at all. I can’t begin to tell you how many Christians I meet who are afraid to stick their theological necks out and expose them to criticism. What Beul and Snokes, and the Board of Education in Dover did was they put their necks out on the line. (And paid nearly two million dollars for it.) Personally, if I could write them a check, I would have. It’s refreshing to see this discussion passionately being put there on the table. Just like the Scopes trial of many moons ago, I sincerely believe that Mr. Darrow has a Piltdown hoax in his closet.

But, the trial court wasn’t shown the jaw bone because the technology to expose the fraud wasn’t available.

The key to presenting Intelligent Design and why I think Kitzmiller went horribly wrong is because we didn’t give respect the opposition. We weren’t honest with ourselves. God’s holding us to a higher standard of honesty than this. Why would Christian’s waste their time attempting to force people to learn about intelligent design when they have no wish to do so? If the public schools are telling your kids that the Big Bang and Bonzo are your true ancestors, then vigorously challenge those ideas by being better, more reliable sources of information. Why force weak premises on people by the very means of suppression you accuse others of using?

Wanted: Molecular Biologist and Biological Anthropologist

Are you and I ever going to know enough to figure out why some scientists can claim that it would take only 20,000 years to evolve a flagellum? Nope. Am I going to prove that the Bible is true, beyond a reasonable doubt, to any one of you? Nope. What’s the greater issue here? The greater political issues, I believe are these, 1) Should Suzy be told by a science teacher that God doesn’t exist? 2) Should our secular boards of education insist that Tommy is told that God may or may not exist? 3) Should the education of our children rest more in the hands of their parents, than the government?

Key Understandings

At the foundation of these issues are the sum total of their parts.

Evolution: Do you believe that this is still a theory? Or is it fact? Why?
Irreducible Complexity: Do you believe this is a fact? Or is it pseudo science? Why?
Separation of Church and State: Do you believe that the separation of church and state is a mandate for secular humanism?
Intellectual Honesty: Were Buel and the Dover Board of Education informed of the Peer Review Standard? Should they have honestly told themselves: "IF we can't play by the rules, then we shouldn't come to the game?"

Did Dover have a right to force the schools in their district to teach the possibility that ID is a credible interpretation of the origin of the universe?

Finally, what would you have done differently, had you argued on the side of ID? (No matter how you personally feel on the subject.)

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

"My opinion is that Kitzmiller did the ID community a great service"

id say it was a disservice. because of absurd comparisons to science, impressionable minds are going to be confused about which is which. science deals in observation and testing, it welcomes scrutiny to further test and validate theories. creationism, in this case, provides no answer, it only poses a question. with creationism, when you attempt to poke a whole in evolutionary theory, youre not presenting an opposing theory, youre only challenging its validity. thats where the confusion happens. people who advocate teaching creationism and evolution side by side obviously dont understand how science works.

now, before you jump up and say "but it does provide an answer, jms!" let me tell you, that scientifically, it does not. just as you can say god created things as they are, i can tell you an enormous cat that was there at the beginning threw up and the universe was in its spew. both claims are completely without evidence - basically, anyone can claim whatever they want if their claims arent subject to scientific scrutiny. fortunately for everyone, thats not how science works.

1) Should Suzy be told by a science teacher that God doesn’t exist?

no.

2) Should our secular boards of education insist that Tommy is told that God may or may not exist?

no.

3) Should the education of our children rest more in the hands of their parents, than the government?

i wouldnt say that its a question of should or shouldnt the parents take control. its more about should they have the choice. and the answer is yes, thats fine. if you want to homeschool your child or send them to a private school i dont see the problem. but when you undermine science with non science (religious belief), in a public arena, youre not only miseducating but stifling religious freedom.


Evolution: Do you believe that this is still a theory? Or is it fact? Why?

theory. because theory is essentially an explanation for fact.

here are some definitions to consider:

theory - a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.

phenomenon - a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable.

Irreducible Complexity: Do you believe this is a fact? Or is it pseudo science? Why?

see above. not science because science deals in cause that can be observed to explain effects that can be observed. a good definition:

science - The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

irreducible complexity doesnt explain anything.

Separation of Church and State: Do you believe that the separation of church and state is a mandate for secular humanism?

no, its about freedom, liberty. people dont have to give up their religious beliefs because the state doesnt enforce them.

not sure if i understand your intellectual honesty question, but i think ive written enough for now.

__________________
Remedial English - Rule #2:

Always check your answers against Google search results.

USG: "My opinion is that Kitzmiller did the ID community a great service"
JMS: id say it was a disservice. because of absurd comparisons to science, impressionable minds are going to be confused about which is which.
USG: I think kids can cope with a great deal more than we give them credit for. But setting that bias aside, I was asked by a friend of mine, at dinner, why am I even spending my time discussing this issue with people. Who cares? Teach them to read, write, and “rithmatic” and they can figure out all that other stuff by themselves or from their parents. I started to argue, but I couldn’t fire off a reply quick enough before we started in the virtues of the New England clam chowder.
I guess it’s up to us to keep origins in the forefront of people’s minds. My fear is, that it will be kept alive with the same kind of energy people are trying to preserve ball room dancing and tempera painting. Some say “It’s not that we would die if we didn’t know where it all came from.”
JMS: science deals in observation and testing, it welcomes scrutiny to further test and validate theories. creationism, in this case, provides no answer, it only poses a question. with creationism, when you attempt to poke a whole in evolutionary theory, youre not presenting an opposing theory, youre only challenging its validity. thats where the confusion happens. people who advocate teaching creationism and evolution side by side obviously dont understand how science works.
USG: I like how you crafted this statement. I would much rather have my child know the truth of thermodynamics than the mystery of quantum singularities. Guys spend their entire lives discovering an element, just to get their name on the periodic table, and then tragically realize that their kids don’t even care.

So on the grand scale of things, does this issue matter to people? Maybe to a few. But most want to know how we are going to lower gas prices. When gas is back down to $0.95 a gallon, we might have time to pick this up again.
I think this issue is gravely important. Because man isn’t a finite thing - after he dies, he returns to the dust and no longer continues is not the way the story ends. In order to believe that God is who he says he is, we have to believe his writings. In order to believe his writings, we have to make this a relevant discussion for the sake of people’s eternal future. Kitzmiller is important, because it keeps the debate of who God is and what he’s all about, alive.
We can argue about the absurdity of all kinds of notions about life and death and God. But to deny our children access to life’s ultimate questions, is a disservice.

As for the intellectual honesty question: In order to give expert testimony in a court of law, it is the burden of the proponent of that testimony to say to the court that whatever comes out of that person's mouth is evidence, based on a high value of credibility. A presumptive credibility. In order for a scientist to be given that credibility in a court of law, one of the standards which can be held under scrutiny of the court is whether or not what the science guy is saying is "peer reviewed". More weight is given to the opionion being proffered, the more extensive the peer review is. Dover school board lost because their experts were giving testamony that wasn't extensively peer reviewed in scientific journals, as was Kitzmiller's experts. And they came out of the wood work to testify to that fact, during trial.

Dover's lawyers should have known this was going to come into play when they introduced their experts. They didn't, and their evidence was surpressed. The downlow is that Kitzmiller had more empiracle data than the Dover school board did. My question is, was this fair?

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

Hmm...Before picking apart the post I am trying to assume the most unbiased view possible. The realization is, with the refutation of God in public schools, it undermines a certain moral guidance system taught so incredulously by parents and advocates of a faith. "There are two educations. One should teach us how to make a living and the other how to live." - John Adams

The issue really needs to be examined from different sides of the box. It isn't merely one or the other goes. There needs to be some sort of philosophical history in public schools, or at the very least, a type of 'morals hour'. With this, comes many arguments from either side of the spectrum - the first is with the kids. They flat won't go for a teacher telling them not to do this and to do that in a class designed as such. But philosophy seems to be a plus, which could touch on the basics of many religions and theology (here again, big problems with the state). And another dilemma, how could it be taught to children/young adults so there is no misinterpretation or ambiguity between a 'class at school' and their religion/beliefs (or how could a higher level thinking be taught at all to very young people). I strongly disapprove of strict science being taught in schools (or religion in public schools for that matter); it must be coupled with something which teaches younger generations to accept other's beliefs and lays the foundation for ethical reasoning (note ethics is not discipline).

__________________
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." - Alexander Pope

I get all giddy inside when I see a well thought out statement. Well done. I may not agree with all you said, but it's clear that you thought it through and presented it well. Thank you.

__________________
"I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution." March 4, 1869, Grant's First Inaugural Address

i wasnt even talking about kids, specifically. young and old alike, allowing what isnt science to be presented as science is confusing to the ignorant, the impressionable, and at the same time both unfair and harmful to science. most importantly evolution can be observed, it is real. viruses and mosquitoes can develop resistance to combat our drugs and chemicals. evolution is not only about mutation but also natural selection. you can pass along your skin color, the shape of your nose, your eye color, your susceptibility to disease, etc. its all around us. pretending it isnt is dangerous. if evolution wasnt acknowledged, we would not be as effective at combating disease and infection.

yes, it matters to people. it has very practical application. breeding animals for their qualities, whether as pets or for food. combating afflictions. there are many important, real-life applications for evolutionary theory. lower gas prices cant save you from epidemics, the application of evolutionary theory can.

what happens when a living thing dies? its a mystery. science doesnt pretend to know things, it only explains what it can. science doesnt disprove god, or an afterlife. science isnt dangerous. creationism doesnt need to destroy science to promise an afterlife. you can teach your child about god and heaven all you want at home, no one is denying that. just dont try to tell people that religion and science are the same, its dishonest and it can have serious consequences.

was that fair? trying to present intelligent design as an opposing theory to evolution is not fair. it simply isnt science. as i mentioned before, it poses a question but explains nothing, by scientific standards. evolution plays by the rules in science, creationism doesnt. you think not allowing the two to be compared on the same level is unfair, i think its unfair to think you can cheat science when others have worked so hard to actually prove their theories were scientifically sound.

in highschool there are classes where students can study religion, but these usually involve more than just christianity. would the proponents of intelligent design go for that? letting all sides be presented? in this sense, it actually would be fair because they would all be religions, just like christianity.

__________________
Remedial English - Rule #2:

Always check your answers against Google search results.

I was referring to 'strict science' as guided without ethics. All of your included ideas are and should be taught in schools. There is no mandatory ethics course, was my point.

__________________
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." - Alexander Pope

i wasnt really responding to your post that time. do you want intelligent design to be taught in science class?

__________________
Remedial English - Rule #2:

Always check your answers against Google search results.

It should be included in a comprehensive philosophy/ethics course yes. It is sad, some kids don't know the meaning of it. But not in science class, no.

__________________
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." - Alexander Pope

sounds reasonable to me.

__________________
Remedial English - Rule #2:

Always check your answers against Google search results.