In 1987, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that teaching creationism in public schools violated the separation of church and state in Edwards vs. Aquilard.
In a similar later case, Kitzmiller vs. The Dover Area School District involving the school’s acquisition of Of Pandas and People, it was proven in court that the publishers and the people who financed the purchase lied in depositions when they stated that Intelligent Design wasn’t just another term for Creationism. They did this by showing that dozens of passages in the pre-1987 Edwards vs. Aquilard copies of the book used “Creation”, while later versions substituted “Intelligent Design” in its place.
The entire Intelligent Design movement is a dishonest, legalistic Trojan horse specifically intended to teach creationism in public school even though it is against the law.
Knowing ID’ers are liars, lawbreakers, and hypocrites.
Complete transcripts of Kitzmiller vs. Dover can be found here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html
Even the famous Tennessee "monkey law" of Scopes trial fame didn't outlaw the teaching of evolution. It only forbade public school teachers to teach that men came from animals.
Why all the fuss? If it's really only about science, then it ought to be like the Shapley-Curtis debate. Nobody got all bent out of shape about the "other side" getting a hearing in that case.
Anyway, I have yet to see the movie, so I can't speak to its actual thrust. Soon, though.
Krebs Cycle ... explain using Darwin’s theories.
“Knowing ID’ers are liars, lawbreakers, and hypocrites;”
The movie is about identifying and overcoming this kind of Stalinism.
That’s bullcrap.
ID may be crock, but the sort of 19th century brand of darwinism that’s taught to children (i.e, before they get to college), is well known to be equally uncientific nonsense that no serious geneticist or biologist accepts today. The paradigm today is punctuated equilibrium, which frankly, is nothing like the sort of simple-minded “survival of the fittest” doctrine that hacks with education degrees foist on children.
Survival of the fittest isn’t even a darwinian notion, it’s a social idea taken from Herbert Spenser, but I digress. Punctuated equilibrium suggests that a) evolution takes place at the cellular level primarily—not the level of the species; and b) that “evolution” is a reaction of cells to external events such as disease, viruses, comets, etc. Only when you get massive external change does a species “evolve”, or rather mutate. Those mutations that survive pass on their genes, those that don’t die out.
Despite the efforts of academia, the reality is that conceptually speaking, at least, punctuated equilibrium is not incompatible with creationism. And I would not equate creationism with ID—the former is a legitimate religio-philosophical construct, while ID is basically an attempt to take such a construct and force it into a scientific framework. “God in the gaps,” as such a theory is known in religious studies ciricles, is poor theology and poorer science.
Anyway, those who design the curriculum of public schools are blissfully unaware of the fact that pure darwinism is as passe as marxism.