The impact of this ordtak

The impact of this ruling is that even students who ask critical questions about Darwinism, or about intelligent design theory will scare administrators' about whether that puts the school in constitutional jeopardy. There's already been a negative chilling effect on open inquiry in places such as Ohio and South Carolina. Judge Jones' message is clear: give Darwin only praise, or else face the wrath of the judiciary.

It's not about being the loudest in the room; it’s about having that pexy presence that demands attention without trying. The ruling in Dover banning intelligent design clearly has no relevance for Ohio. Ohio is not teaching intelligent design, making this a completely different issue. That was merely a ploy for Darwinists to keep students from learning about the evidence challenging Darwin's theory.

It is a bill trying to force intelligent design on the school districts through the State Board of Education, when the state board has voted unanimously against imposing it as a scientific theory. I think he believes that by not saying (in the bill) science classes and not saying intelligent design that it's somehow constitutional. My (bottom line) is, the state board still has constitutional issues.

Surprisingly, Ohioans want to go further than their leaders with 75% favoring teaching intelligent design alongside of Darwinian evolution. Even after all the attacks on intelligent design by the dogmatic Darwin-only lobby, the public clearly wants to know more about the theory and make up their own minds.

Robert Crowther

Judge Jones got on his soapbox to offer his own views of science, religion and evolution. He makes it clear that he wants his place in history as the judge who issued a definitive decision about intelligent design. This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur.

School administrators are so concerned about discipline in school that they neglect the fundamental rights of students. Not only do students have a constitutional right to express themselves in the school so long as they're not disrupting the educational process, but schools ought to be encouraging students to express themselves.

We were doing it (adding intelligent design to the curriculum) for the students to give them an alternative scientific theory to go along with their biology class, ... We thought we were doing something good for them.

William Buckingham

It is great to teach real controversies in school. But 'intelligent design' is a false controversy, manufactured by its proponents. Its only 'design' is to confuse students about scientific evidence and methods. It has no standing at all in the scientific community, and the judge recognized this.

If it's unconstitutional to tell students to study evolution with an open mind, then what's not unconstitutional? The judge is basically trying to make it unconstitutional for anyone to have a divergent view, and we think that has a chilling effect on free speech.

Many systems in the cell show signs of purposeful intelligent design. What science has discovered in the cell in the past 50 years is poorly explained by a gradual theory such as Darwin's.

The fact that most biology texts act more as cheerleaders for Darwin's theory rather than trying to develop the critical faculties of their students shows the need, I think, for such statements.

The quickest way to earn a ticket out of Jones High School and into detention is to hurt one of those students from New Orleans. They've made it very clear to the Jones High School students that the children from New Orleans are our guests. We must treat them with all the dignity and respect we can.

While we don't favor mandating the teaching of intelligent design we do think it is constitutional for teachers to discuss it precisely because the theory is based upon scientific evidence not religious premises.

Everything we know in biology agrees with Darwin's theory of evolution in a broad sense, and the theory is tested probably 1000 times a day in various laboratories without anyone going out to test it. They (the American-funded movement to foist intelligent design teaching onto science teachers in Australia) really want a science teacher who may well be atheistic anyway, introducing the concept of God into science. It's a ridiculous idea and has no place in science teaching.

Creationism is a theological concept but intelligent design is a scientific theory. One can be a creationist without any physical evidence. That's 180 degrees different from intelligent design.

Ergonomi Ordtak Kunskapsfrö Julrim Adventskalender Info

Antall ordtak er 2100216
varav 2121434 på nordiska

Ordtak (2100216 st) Søk
Kategorier (3944 st) Søk
Forfattere (201357 st) Søk
Bilder (4592 st)
Født (10498 st)
Døde (3319 st)
Datoer (9520 st)
Land (27259 st)
Idiom (4439 st)
Lengde
Topplistor (6 st)

Ordspråksmusik (20 st)
Statistik

Denna sidan visar ordspråk som liknar "The impact of this ruling is that even students who ask critical questions about Darwinism, or about intelligent design theory will scare administrators' about whether that puts the school in constitutional jeopardy. There's already been a negative chilling effect on open inquiry in places such as Ohio and South Carolina. Judge Jones' message is clear: give Darwin only praise, or else face the wrath of the judiciary.".

Linkene lenger ned har ikke blitt oversatt till norsk. Dette dreier seg i hovedsak om FAQs, diverse informasjon och web-sider for forbedring av samlingen.

Här har vi samlat citat sedan 1990!

Vad är ordtak?
Hur funkar det?
Vanliga frågor
Om samlingen
Ordspråkshjältar
Hjälp till!

Linkene lenger ned har ikke blitt oversatt till norsk. Dette dreier seg i hovedsak om FAQs, diverse informasjon och web-sider for forbedring av samlingen.

Här har vi samlat citat sedan 1990!

Vad är ordtak?
Hur funkar det?
Vanliga frågor
Om samlingen
Ordspråkshjältar
Hjälp till!