Posted on 09/28/2005 4:11:22 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
HARRISBURG, Pa. - A former physics teacher testified that his rural school board ignored faculty protests before deciding to introduce the theory of "intelligent design" to high school students.
"I saw a district in which teachers were not respected for their professional expertise," Bryan Rehm, a former teacher at Dover High School, said Tuesday.
Rehm, who now teaches in another district, is a plaintiff in the nation's first trial over whether public schools can teach "intelligent design."
Eight Dover families are trying to have the controversial theory removed from the curriculum, arguing that it violates the constitutional separation of church and state. They say it effectively promotes the Bible's view of creation.
Proponents of intelligent design argue that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force, and that Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms.
Aralene "Barrie" Callahan, a former member of the Dover school board and another plaintiff in the case, said that at least two board members made statements during meetings that made her believe the new policy was religiously based.
At a retreat in March 2003, a board member "expressed he did not believe in evolution and if evolution was part of the biology curriculum, creationism had to be shared 50-50," Callahan testified.
At a school board meeting in June 2004, when she was no longer on the board, Callahan recalled another board member complaining that a biology book recommended by the administration was "laced with Darwinism."
"They were pretty much downplaying evolution as something that was credible," she said.
In October 2004, the board voted 6-3 to require teachers to read a brief statement about intelligent design to students before classes on evolution. The statement says Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information.
In a separate development Tuesday, two freelance newspaper reporters who covered the school board in June 2004 both invoked their First Amendment rights and declined to provide a deposition to lawyers for the school district.
Both are expected in court Wednesday to respond to a subpoena to testify at trial, said Niles Benn, a lawyer for the papers. Lawyers for the school district have questioned the accuracy of articles in which the reporters wrote that board members discussed creationism during public meetings.
In other testimony Tuesday, plaintiff Tammy Kitzmiller said that in January, her younger daughter opted out of hearing the statement - an option given all students - putting her in an awkward position.
"My 14-year-old daughter had to make the choice between staying in the classroom and being confused ... or she had to be singled out and face the possible ridicule of her friends and classmates," she said.
The Dover Area School District, which serves about 3,500 students, is believed to be the nation's first school system to mandate that students be exposed to the intelligent design concept. It argues it is not endorsing any religious view and only letting students know there are differences of opinion about evolution.
The non-jury trial is expected to take five weeks.
My comment: very good news indeed for the plaintiffs. The newspaper reports of school board meetings are one the principal threads of evidence that the school board was religiously motivated. The defendants were hoping to give the reporters the third degree to impeach their reporting. By putting tight constraints on what they can be asked, Judge Jones has made it very difficult for the defense to do this.
Reporters avoid contempt charges
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Two reporters subpoenaed for the Dover schools intelligent design trial say now they will testify after U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III guaranteed them that all questions will be limited to the accuracy of their stories. Joseph Maldonado, a freelancer for the York Daily Record/Sunday News, said he and Heidi Bernhard-Bubb, a freelancer for The York Dispatch, will testify to “what we said all along, ‘yes we wrote them (the articles), yes we stand by them.’”
The reporters’ attorney, Niles Benn, said Jones will issue a “very closed, protective” order before Maldonado and Bernhard-Bubb are deposed and testify, which will serve to limit the questioning.
The two had both invoked their reporter’s privilege against being called to testify at depositions Tuesday, risking contempt charges.
Today’s development took place this afternoon in U.S. Middle District Court after a morning of testimony.
Supporters of intelligent design have argued the concept is not religious because the designer is never identified.
But in the third day of testimony in the federal court case challenging the school district’s inclusion of intelligent design in biology class, an expert for the plaintiffs pointed to examples where its supporters have identified the designer, and the designer is God.
Robert Pennock, a Michigan State University professor of the philosophy of science, pointed to a reproduction shown in court of writing by Phillip Johnson, a law professor at the University of California-Berkeley and author of books including “Darwin on Trial” and “Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds.”
Johnson, known as the father of the intelligent design movement, wrote of “theistic realism.”
“This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that this reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology,” the writing stated.
*gasp* Creationists/ID'ers who are less than honest about their motives and intent? That would never happen....
The bible records instances where this happens to some, painful hemmorhoids and something about mice.
“Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’”
-John Adams, October 19, 1756
The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.
-John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11
The clergy, by getting themselves established by law, & ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man.
-Thomas Jefferson, August 14, 1800
History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose.
-Thomas Jefferson, December 6, 1813
Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise
-James Madison, April 1, 1774
when I see throughout the greater part of this book (the Bible) scarcely anything but a history of the grossest vices and a collection of the most paltry and contemptible tales, I cannot dishonor my Creator by calling it by His name
-Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit
-Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
It is often said in the Bible that God spake unto Moses, but how do you know that God spake unto Moses? Because, you will say, the Bible says so. The Koran says, that God spake unto Mahomet, do you believe that too? No. Why not? Because, you will say, you do not believe it; and so because you do, and because you don't is all the reason you can give for believing or disbelieving except that you will say that Mahomet was an impostor. And how do you know Moses was not an impostor?
-Thomas Paine, May 12, 1797
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason
-Benjamin Franklin, 1758
In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the want of it
-Benjamin Franklin
Are you still so certain?
Actually, the major reason behind the public school movement in the first place was because of concern regarding religious teachings being provided in the private institutions that made up the school system of the time, beginning in 1818, when Boston became the first American city to establish a complete government-financed school system, and continuing up through the 1830s and 40s with Horace Mann and the rise of the government school system.
Before that time there were no tax-funded schools, so of course the founders would have no jurisdiction over those school boards.
I'm kind of curious about your obsession with Darwin quotes. What in particular makes you think you've found something worthy of all the attention?
What is your point? I would be ill If I had to live near you, and I suspect vice-versa.
He got better after his theory was accepted by science.
Me:I'm happy to say that MY God did create the earth in 7 lteral 24 hour days.
You:Well then "your God" is a liar because He left enormous evidence in many different scientific disciplines that contradict a literal 6 day creation.
Either that or the Catholics are right in their interpretation of Genesis and you're wrong.
Me: Hmmmmm ...
Rom.3:4
[4] God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Good grief! I'm NOT Catholic!!!! Please NOTE THAT in the future.
Rom.12:2
[2] And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
"Ignorance must really be bliss. I guess it is better to be ignorant and 'saved' than educated about how things really are and 'damned.'"
No knowldge is comforting. Junk science isn't my thing.
How things really are - is something you cannot accept so you will be "dammed" while I'll be "saved" and spending eternity in heaven.
"Do you even know the history of the Book of Genesis that you are putting so much faith into? Not the history in it, but the history of where it came from and how it got included in the bible."
Do YOU?
If you did you wouldn't ask such a foolish question?
Familiar with Hebrew and the fact that the Old Testament is CONSISTENT no matter when it is found - Dead Sea Scrolls ring a bell?
Me: I'm happy to say that MY God did create the earth in 7 lteral 24 hour days and it didn't take millions or billions of years for Him to do it and He is NO ape.
You: You can say that, but why would anyone believe a known liar like you?
Me: I feel sorry for you. You make up lies and call ME the liar. Sure DU isn't a more suitable forum for you?
You are an example of what I would NEVER want to be, Ever!
"Everything you do in the classroom is teaching"
Plaintiffs testify at afternoon session
This afternoon, three plaintiffs in our case testified regarding school board meetings they attended and their feelings about the curriculum change. Julie Smith, Christy Rehm, and Beth Eveland all took the stand.
Mrs. Rehm, who is a teacher in a public school outside of York County, testified about the impact of behaviors in the classroom.
"As a teacher, I feel teachers in general have been harmed," she stated. "Everything you do in the classroom is teaching. How I dress is teaching. Statements I don't make teach my students."
"This has spilled over into other classes," she continued. "Children of school board members say, 'Do you think we came from monkeys? How can you think we came from monkeys?'"
Mrs. Rehm is the mother of four children, including a daughter in the ninth grade.
Earlier, Julie Smith conveyed her concerns about the impact of school events on her family's religious life.
According to Mrs. Smith, her teenage daughter said, "Mom, evolution's a lie. What kind of Christian are you?"
Mrs. Eveland discussed board meetings, calling them "a circus-like atmosphere."
"I remember [Dover School Board member] Bill Buckingham saying, '2,000 years ago someone died on a cross. Isn't someone going to take a stand for him?'"
Mrs. Eveland responded by sending a letter to school officials and a letter to the editor of the York Daily Record, which the paper published. When Steve Harvey, our attorney who handled direct questioning, asked her to read the letter, opposing counsel objected, calling it "hearsay."
"Why is it hearsay?" Judge Jones asked.
After listening to the defense counsel's point, his honor asked, "Who wrote the letter?"
"She did."
"Overruled."
I figured you weren't Catholic. They don't have any problem with science as you do.
It's not an unreasonable question. If evolution is true, the teacher should have no problem explaining how.
Earlier, Julie Smith conveyed her concerns about the impact of school events on her family's religious life. According to Mrs. Smith, her teenage daughter said, "Mom, evolution's a lie. What kind of Christian are you?"
If ID has not been taught in the classroom, one cannot blame the school board. What students hear from others, who have freedom of speech outside the classroom, cannot be barred by any court in most cases; and especially if it is religious in nature.
Win or lose, the plaintiffs are going to be exposing exposing evolution to new levels of scrutiny. The simple matter of Miller admitting that evolution is not a fact will not be ignored by the IDers or creationists.
In your genes.
"Do you realize just some of what is required for a new species to arise based on evolution?
No. Please tell us.
Is there a site that is posting a verbatim transcript of the testimony? I have a problem with trusting the ACLU spin on what is going on; not that one should blindly accept a summary from a pro-ID site either.
Fine, but that wasn't a tough call. The lawyer who claimed it's inadmissible for someone to read her own letter was being an idiot.
Bear in mind that if this judge wants to rule for the defendant School Board, he also wants to make his ruling "bullet-proof," that is, not easily overturned on appeal. One type of error that the plaintiffs could raise on appeal is if the judge were to refuse to allow in some allegedly vital bit of their evidence. However, if the judge lets in everything the plaintiffs offer (and the fans of the plaintiffs' side are confidently predicting victory because it's all going so well), but then the judge rules against them, it's going to be very difficult to overturn his ruling.
Remember, it's a non-jury trial, so he's the fact-finder. The appellate court won't re-examine his fact-finding, unless he makes a ruling that is totally unsupported by the factual record. That's unlikely. If there's evidence on both sides, he's pretty much on his own as to how much weight to give to each witness, etc. If there's anything in the record to support his ruling, his fact-finding will not be overturned.
In that case, the plaintiffs' only route on appeal would be to assert that he's made a major blunder on the Constitutional law. Which is precisely how this case will find its way to the Supreme Court. (Remember, you read it here first.)
Not that I've found. In the interests of balance, the DI trial blog is here
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.