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.
Did you read the link?
The ordinance was also significant for establishing a mechanism for funding public education. The sixteenth section in each township was reserved for the maintenance of public schools. Many modern schools today still are located in section sixteen of their respective townships, although a great many of them were sold to raise money for public education.
It culminated in 1835, when Michigan was the first state to constitutionally prohibit the use of public funds "for the benefit of religious societies or theological seminaries."
Are you saying that creationism wasn't being taught, prayers being said, and the Bible being read in Michigan public schools after 1835?
And the writer of this statement is who?
Miller stated in his cross examination that evolution is not a dact. Do you disagree with him?
Horses and donkeys. And very occasionally mules are even fertile.
No kidding. I was born 20 years or so too late for the good stuff. I saw Floyd sans Waters a couple of times but its not the same.
I agree with just about everything you posted. You forgot to mention thuis whole "grunge" craze which started out ok (Soundgarden, STP, Alice in Chains) but has evolved (devolved) into pure crapola with everyone and their grandmother trying to sound like Curt Kobain.
No, it means that you don't have an understanding of genetics, cell biology or evolutionary processes.
I don't fault you on this. Tteaching in high school and even basic college in this area isn't the greatest.
Whether ID is "infused with theology" or not is irrelevant since the Dover School Board curriculum does not teach ID. The case is more specifically about who decides local school board issues, the locals or technocrats and the judicial oligarchy.
It also has the virtue of unmasking CINO's which abound here at FR.
Did you read my entire post, where I conceded your point?
It was a quote by John Adams. Written in his journal on February 22, 1756. It was one of his earliest entries in it, right after he graduated from Harvard and at the start of an introspective spiritual journey of self doubt and eventual enlightenment. Another quote, one I gave, came 8 months later after he realized just how damnable the bible truly was.
Adams actually ended up taking the view that any religion, or indeed even atheism, if allowed to be more powerful than the rest would eventually become tyrannical persecutors of all others. He was the chief promoter of balancing power in both government and religion, urging Thomas Jefferson to consider 'checks and balances', of which Jefferson was skeptical. Interestingly, while Adams and Jefferson were to become political adversaries, their views complemented each other nicely, each tempering the other.
I must admit that before this exchange between us I didn't know most of this. I quoted Adams blindly, and while it turns out I got lucky and happened to choose a quote more in keeping with his ultimate views, I still regret doing so without knowing beforehand. I try to avoid both out of context quotes and ones that may represent views that the originator may have changed his mind on. I apologize for not checking beforehand in this case.
As always, NS is a crappy theory. Crappy definitions, crappy logic, and overstated importance.
You realize how humorous this all sounds to anyone who has bothered to read any biology beyond a public high school education, don't you?
Given how you repeatedly launch ad hominem attacks against a theory you obviously don't understand and fire off "stream-of-consciousness" rants about epistemology without stating anything of substance about the science involved, I guess not.
Q
I've often asked what relevence NS has to medicine, other tech applications etc.
Crickets.
Morons tell me that science has not been interested in philosophy for decades. Not understanding that reason and logic are included in that tirade of course.
Crickets.
So what are the major applications to medicine? Major applications to other tech?
Crickets again.
Doh!
DK
Up to the challange? Or do you want to quote an obsure computer program for NS?
Some applications of evolutionary theory
Loud "crickets" indeed. But I'm sure these (or any examples that might be given to you) aren't good enough.
If you have further objections as to the validity or usefulness of the theory of evolution, there are many scientific journals eager to review your submissions.
Q
I appreciate the post. The citation is crap though. Hiv hasn't been cured. Most of the the other cites are just as overblown.
That is precisely why Hard Core Evolutionists aren't taken seriously.
Overstating something is not very useful. Eh?
DK
Do you have a link to his cross-examination? I know I saw a reference to it on one of these threads but I haven't been able to find it since.
The beautiful sound of crickets!
DK
The link I made never claimed that . I don't understand - are you trying to imply that creationism or intelligent design has had better luck in generating applications that fight HIV?
That is precisely why Hard Core Evolutionists aren't taken seriously.
Evolution is taken very seriously as science, as a quick perusal of any mainstream biological journal will reveal. Creationism, on the other hand...
It is mentioned in this article.
http://www.yorkdispatch.com/features/idesign/ci_3066513
I, for one, would enjoy reading the actual transcripts of the testimony. Can't always trust a paper's reporting of the facts or the context of the quotes.
Man I loved Nirvana, I couldn`t believe it when they came out, couldn`t believe they were even given a record deal and actually promoted as they weren`t a MTV "hair band", it was just so unlike the industry to actually take in a band that had something new because of the music holocaust, but as expected the end result was 10 billion Nirvana clones for the next 15 years that will probably extend into 20 years. Even Greenday was cool, now the music holocaust has eaten them up as well turning them into commerical hacks. "No Billie Joe, you must play gay ballads. Our marketing firm says la di da ballads are the way to go"
All he's saying here is that theories and facts are different things, and that theories are always subject to revision or falsification. That's nothing different than what scientists have been saying all along.Cross examination starts: The ACLU's Walczak ended his line of questioning with Miller with about an hour and a half left in the day.
Robert Muise, attorney with the Thomas More Law Center, began his cross examination by suggesting that maybe there was evidence, "observable, empirical facts" to a greater hand's help in the Red Sox victory.
His next line of questions seemed to focus on the language used in the board's policy, which says there are "gaps" in Darwin's theory.
But Miller countered that no scientific theory is a fact: Even the theories of friction and gravity are not "fact" because in science, everything is subject to testing.
You could just as easily point to Roger Pennock's testimony today where he said that for all we know, the Matrix hypothesis could well be true and we've all been implanted with memory chips 5 minutes ago. <shrug>
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.