Posted on 01/06/2005 7:39:47 AM PST by PatrickHenry
A Pennsylvania school district Wednesday rejected charges that plans to include references to an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution in high school biology classes would be illegal.
The Dover Area School District near Harrisburg is the first in the United States to introduce "Intelligent Design," a theory that the natural world is so complex it must have been made by an intelligent being, rather than occurring by chance, as held by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. ["By chance" isn't quite accurate, but that's what the reporter wrote.]
The district was sued by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State on December 14 over plans to teach the theory starting next week. The lawsuit is the first to challenge the teaching of Intelligent Design, which the groups say violates the Constitutional separation of church and state.
A Pennsylvania school district Wednesday rejected charges that plans to include references to an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution in high school biology classes would be illegal.
The Dover Area School District near Harrisburg is the first in the United States to introduce "Intelligent Design," a theory that the natural world is so complex it must have been made by an intelligent being, rather than occurring by chance, as held by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
The district was sued by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State on December 14 over plans to teach the theory starting next week. The lawsuit is the first to challenge the teaching of Intelligent Design, which the groups say violates the Constitutional separation of church and state.
The civil rights groups argued that "Intelligent Design" is a thinly veiled version of creationism -- the belief that the earth was made by God. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1980s that teaching creationism in public schools would violate the constitutional separation of church and state. [The case to which the article refers is probably this one: EDWARDS v. AGUILLARD.]
The school district said in Wednesday's court filing that its "biology curriculum policy does not advance religion."
Instead, it informs "students about the existing scientific controversy surrounding Darwin's Theory of Evolution." [Note: virtually all scientists in the field of biology deny that there is any scientific controversy involved.]
Christian conservatives, who played an important role in the re-election of President Bush, have been pressing for decades for creationism to be taught in schools. [Note: There are major political implications here if creationism (or ID) becomes Republican policy.]
Lawyers for the school board said that neither creationism nor "Intelligent Design" will be taught to students, and that no religious beliefs will be taught.
Intelligent Design does not presuppose any supernatural being, and is not creationism, the school district said in its response, saying the school district will also continue to teach evolution.
On January 13, teachers will be required to read a statement saying that Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view, and that if students want to read more about it, they can read a book called "Of Pandas and People" which they can find in the school library.
Witold Walczak, legal director of the ACLU in Pennsylvania, said the plaintiffs will not seek an order to stop the policy being implemented next week and hope the case will go to trial in the coming months.
"This is the first legal challenge to Intelligent Design, and that alone makes it important," Walczak said. "If we lose, we really fear that you will see school districts all across the country teaching Intelligent Design."
|
Otherwise known as the, "If-ignorance-isn't-bliss-then-I-don't-know-what-is" theory.
> Intelligent Design does not presuppose any supernatural being, and is not creationism, the school district said in its response
Well, good. Then I can assume they'll be teaching the Raelian view, then, yes?
Not necessarily. ID could include design by highly advanced aliens. Proponents of ID are usually inferring God, granted, but teaching that the complicated world we see could have been designed doesn't necessarily limit this designer to be God. Of course any alien able to seed and build the world as we know it is by all practicable purposes "God" from our perspective.
> Proponents of ID are usually inferring God
Or Allah. Let's not ignore the fact that perhaps most of the Creationists in the world are Muslim.
And THIS is what upsets you? The teacher isn't even going to explain what ID is... much less teach it. S/he'll just offer students the opportunity to learn something outside of the classroom. I'm sorry. I can't see a mere twenty-second suggestion of optional outside-of-class not-for-credit work could possibly infringe on someone's freedom of religion.
"The district was sued by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State on December 14 over plans to teach the theory starting next week. The lawsuit is the first to challenge the teaching of Intelligent Design, which the groups say violates the Constitutional separation of church and state."
There is so much wrong with that, I hardly know where to start with it. For one thing, ID doesn't neccessarily invoke a supreme being, so it is nothing short of misleading to assert that it is limited to biblical creationism.
Secondly, and perhaps this is the more important problem, the 'wall of separation between church and state' has become not only 'high and impenetrable' it has become so broad that it is quite arguably useless.
Unless of course, one side of the body-politic uses it to stifle another.
Omar.
""Intelligent Design," a theory that the natural world is so complex it must have been made by an intelligent being, rather than occurring by chance,...
...Intelligent Design does not presuppose any supernatural being,... the school district said in its response"
So, an "intelligent being" who is powerful enough to create the natural world is NOT a "supernatural being"?
So who/what does ID suppose was behind it - Superman?
This is just another attempt to force a particular religion down the public's throat.
"Otherwise known as the, "If-ignorance-isn't-bliss-then-I-don't-know-what-is" theory."
LMAO!
"Not necessarily. ID could include design by highly advanced aliens. Proponents of ID are usually inferring God, granted, but teaching that the complicated world we see could have been designed doesn't necessarily limit this designer to be God. Of course any alien able to seed and build the world as we know it is by all practicable purposes "God" from our perspective."
Good point. Yet, I'm positive that if someone taught ID in a public school and taught that perhaps Martians seeded the Earth with DNA, the Christian right would go absolutely bonkers in protest.
I'm also reminded of several "Star Trek - TNG" episodes by your post.
Of course... then one would immediately conclude that the highly advanced alien civilization must be even more advanced and complex than ours... so complex that it must have been created by an even more intelligent being.
You just can't rationalize ID without the G word... even if you can teach ID without mentioning it.
It will be interesting. I've had classes where the teachers were forced to stick something that they opposed in the curriculum. Not pretty.
You might want to think this one through befor trying to defend it. There's a little, but important, piece missing from your logic.
Assuming it is designed, our world seems to be the work of a "C" student.
Anything that annoys the evil Anti Christian Lawyers Union is by definition a good thing. They are always wrong.
I think that they should point out that the designer was rather incompentent. Lots of false starts, propagation of copying errors, etc.
This must be fought tooth and nail within the party. Conservatism cannot be hijacked for a war against reality.
Of course, perhaps the designer was just an incompentent named Forbin whose creations later surpassed her wildest imagination. Why must one suppose the designer is more intelligent than the designed objects?
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.