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.
Disagree. There are many of us who are very comfortable with the idea that God created the universe and everything in it. Evolution is part of that creation. So is the big bang. It's possible that there is more out there than the universe that we know now postulated as "multiverse" (I find that word to be even more preposterous than a current popular bastardization -- "methodology". The word universe is by definition a single totality, regardless of how much that total increases due to new knowledge). Man does not have perfect knowledge of God, and I believe we won't while in this world. But occasionally bits of God are revealed to individuals who are then detested by those who think they know God already.
Knowledge discovered by science does not negate the Bible. The bible is known as the "book of books" for a reason. It was not written all in one sitting, it was written over the course of at least a millenia. In it there are prophets who added new guidance to the old wisdom as understood up to that point, as there were still many errors in our knowledge and ways, all this before Jesus was sent to forgive our sins and enlighten the world to the path of salvation. So it is not at all unprecedented that God reveals new knowledge to modern prophets to explain his creation. Genesis does not preclude evolution. We know that time spans in the Bible are not what we know today. Genesis tells us that God created the world and everything in it. It doesn't tell us how he did it.
Of course it doesn't. The question is does a designer better describe reality than than the known natural occurances of random mutation and natural selection.
Do random mutation and natural selection adequately describe the reality of biology. They don't and it's strange that there are those that insist that they do.
-from Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education v. Freiler. US Sup Ct denied certiorari, Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas dissenting.
I join this dissent. The error being made by some on the science side of this debate is equal in magnitude to the error of excluding the evidence of evolution by Christian educators. The point has been made that science seeks answers as to the "how" but not the "why" of life. "Why" is so fundamental to human nature that to deny it in schools is as shameful a crippling of curiosity as denying scientific inquiry.
The government has no more right to deny the reading of the Bible in schools than it does to deny the reading of the Koran, the teachings of Budda, Confucius, or other religious teachings with a rich history of inquiry into the "why" of life and the "how" of interpersonal interaction. This book banning must end.
Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God....What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be.”Do you agree with the quote? Would a slave-owning nation be a "Paradise"? I realize there are Biblical restrictions on the size of the stick you can beat the slaves with, but I'll side with Mr. Lincoln on this one.
The quote was by John Adams who also said Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States.... I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in... abhorrence."
As the song says:
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me;
As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
The posted quote does not mention Christianity or the New Testament. The Bible contains rules regarding the treatment of slaves.
The song is irrelevant.
And Adams was not referring to Colonial America when he uttered that quote.
The Bible contains rules regarding the treatment of slaves.
Sure does, as does our Constitution. Of course the Constitution also forbids slavery.
The Bible also contains rules about divorce. Does the Bible condone divorce?
The song is irrelevant.
LOL.
I see no rules governing the treatment of slaves in the Constitution, but even if there were, they would be as irrelevant as the song. The song is not from the Bible, and neither is the Constitution. The song quotes the Bible, but that has nothing whatever to do with my question, which was, "Do you agree with the quote? Would a slave-owning nation be a "Paradise"?
I will take your refusal to answer a perfectly simple question as the answer to the question.
Do you agree with the quote?
Yes
Would a slave-owning nation be a "Paradise"?
No.
I see no rules governing the treatment of slaves in the Constitution,
Article I Section 2. Slaves are to be treated as "three fifths of all other Persons" for the purpose of determining state population for representation in the House of Representatives.
So from your answers, you agree with Adams that a nation using the Bible as its only law book would be a paradise.
The Bible assumes that people will own slaves and lists certain rules as to their treatment and disposition.
Yet you don't agree that a slave-owning nation would be a paradise.
Okay.
Yes
The Bible assumes that people will own slaves
No. The Bible actually condemns slave trading pretty harshly and advocates slaves acquiring their freedom. Have you ever read it.
It supplies rules for the correct treatment of slaves -- it doesn't ban the keeping of slaves. That's enough to take it out of the "Paradise on Earth" category, especially for the slaves.
I've read it.
Of course they do...the god of atheism, agnostism, materialism and libertarianism (yeah, them too).
Can't say I believe that or you've read it selectively. You certainly don't understand it.
Are you an atheist?
Are these some of those passages that, unlike the parts of the Bible that are well-known-to-everyone to be literal, are to be "interpreted," which everyone knows how to interpret "correctly," except those who don't agree with your interpretation?
My theism, or lack thereof, doesn't matter. If you're going to import Biblical concepts into school, especially science class, be prepared for all sorts of unsavory types -- me, for instance -- to take a very close look at them. When the Bible is subjected every day to scientific scrutiny, you're really not going to like the results.
It's a bit early to be calling it a night, but I'm calling it a night. Thanks, all.
It means that if you think the Bible is a book that promotes or encourages slavery, you don't understand it. Have you ever gave a minutes thought as to why you think slavery is wrong?
My theism, or lack thereof, doesn't matter.
So spell it out. Are you an atheist? Are you selectively reading the Bible to give yourself an excuse not to believe in God? If so, why is slavery wrong?
300
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.