Posted on 12/21/2004 7:59:02 PM PST by postitnews.com
HARRISBURG, PA-The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and attorneys with Pepper Hamilton LLP filed a federal lawsuit today on behalf of 11 parents who say that presenting "intelligent design" in public school science classrooms violates their religious liberty by promoting particular religious beliefs to their children under the guise of science education.
"Teaching students about religion's role in world history and culture is proper, but disguising a particular religious belief as science is not," said ACLU of Pennsylvania Legal Director Witold Walczak. "Intelligent design is a Trojan Horse for bringing religious creationism back into public school science classes."
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United Executive Director, added, "Public schools are not Sunday schools, and we must resist any efforts to make them so. There is an evolving attack under way on sound science...Read More
(Excerpt) Read more at postitnews.com ...
He's getting so thin these days ~ has he picked up AIDS, or what?
What kind of reverend worls to REMOVE religion from public life and make sure that our government follows no god at all?
The evolution cultists are one more reason to avoid the Publik Skools. Other reasons include the abortion cultists, the gay cultists, the multi-cultural cultists, and many more.
ID is not a scientific theory and should not be taught as an alternative to evolution in our schools.
Disputing evolution is saying that every scientists in the life sciences is wrong. Scientists from disciplines from genomics to paleontology rely heavily on evolution and support it 100%.
If you want ID taught in schools, fine. But under no circumstances may it be taught in science class, since scientists unanimously agree it is NOT science. Hence, the ACLU is spot on in this case.
ID must be taught in mythology or religion class where it belongs.
The school district is mandating that students be told there IS an alternative theory, but as I understand (correctly? incorrectly?), the teachers are not teaching that theory (ID), but telling students they may investigate it on their own if they wish.
Am I getting this right? I'm not really familiar with the whole Dover story...someone help with details?
Thomas More Law Center is defending the school district:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=40949
Are you including the "gravity" cultists as well? They are both scientific theories. Lets ban the teaching of gravity as well or at least teach some harebrained idea as an alternative. --So the "kids" can decide--.
"Intelligent design is a Trojan Horse for bringing religious creationism back into public school science classes."
That is not an accurate representation. Biblical creationism is definitely religious based, I know I am one.
However, ID is non-secterian and so vague that it cannot be tied to a specific religious belief system.
However, I will admit that if "unchurched" children are presented with the idea that mankind and the world about us may be the result of intelligence - a creator - it could cause them to seek answer in the Bible. That is what the radical groups want to avoid...people (shudder!) reading the Bible! (horror of horrors!) They might actually believe it.
Agree completely.
"In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard, that the belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of human kind is a religious viewpoint and cannot be taught in public schools along with the scientific theory of evolution."
http://www.aclupa.org/news/2004/intelligent_design.html
Entire article at website
Are you including the "gravity" cultists as well?
You forgot to mention the Pi cultists, dude.
The solution ultimately is for parents to homeschool or send their kids to conservative private schools. The leftist element that controls the public schools (ACLU, teachers' unions, federal & state bureaucracies, feminist-gay-secularist activists, etc.) will never allow evolution to be disestablished as the only theory allowed to be considered. They'll never let it be put to the competitive test in the marketplace of ideas. I gave up on the "publik skools" a long time ago and encourage any conservative to do the same.
Evolution is put to the competitive test every day. There is a Nobel waiting in the wings should someone supersede it with a better theory.
LOL! I like "e" (2.718281828459045... ) better. :-)
"But under no circumstances may it be taught in science class, since scientists unanimously agree it is NOT science."
That is a falsehood. I know many scientists that would disagree with you. So, you cannot say "unanimously."
Because you think ID is equivalent to a myth does not make it so. If one does not want to call ID a "scientific" theory then they should at least have the sense to realize it is an alternative explanation. You evoluntionary proponents are just like religious zealots when it comes to propping up your current paridigm. If evolutionary theory cannot stand a little competetion from something as inocuous and vague a ID, then it must not be so great a theory.
"Because you think ID is equivalent to a myth does not make it so."
And because YOU think evolution is a cultic belief does not make it so.
See how that works?
"Evolution is put to the competitive test every day."
That is also a falsehood. The only "competition" evoluntarily theory is faced with are about arguements over the mechanisms. The theory is so inculcated into the heads of people, that the basic premise is never argued or questioned by the vast majority.
Is this because it is such a good explaination? No, it is because it the the best explaination that can be come up with that excludes the requirement for a "creator." If there is a creator, then those created could be answerable to him(it). That is unacceptable by most.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.