Ex-Teacher Testifies in Evolution Case [Day 3 of trial in Dover, PA]

The Intelligencer (PA) via phillyBurbs ^ | 28 September 2005 | MARTHA RAFFAELE

[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.

[Zeroisanumber]

Why is it that whenever creationists want to slander evolution, they call it "religion?"

Projection.

[Liberal Classic]

Given your propensity of using out-of-context quotes, I find your use of this Darwin quote to be dubious.

[js1138]

He who understands baboon would do more toward Metaphysics than Locke...

And malt does more than Milton can
To justify God's ways to man.

[ml1954]

I remember something about that too.

[js1138]

... Philip Johnson's statements on ID being an excuse to bring God into the classroom.

That does seem like a rookie mistake for a lawyer. Smart of him to avoid the trial.

[connectthedots]

My point is that parents who believe that made evolved from primates/monkeys have no basis to complain when other kids say to their daughter that she came from monkeys.

Is it cruel? Yes, because it isn't true.

I suppose it would have been more accurate for other kids to tell her daughter that her parents believed she came from monkeys.

[Right Wing Professor]

I recall that Santorum slipped something strange into the "No student left behind" bill. Something about creationism. I may be remembering it all wrong.

That's right, the 'Santorum Amendment'. It was in the preamble of the bill though, so it had no effect. I charitably assume he was showboating for his base.

I doubt he recommended a judge based on his beliefs on evolution. As you say, the guy looks like a party hack. He won't want to stick his neck out, and in PA, that's would be by ignoring precedent and finding for the religious right. I hope I'm right.

[edsheppa]

I was quite surprised he admitted testimony about Philip Johnson's statements on ID ....

Really? Doesn't surprise me. The school board wasn't acting in a vacuum. The environment and ecology of ID is very relevant.

[Right Wing Professor]

Is it cruel? Yes, because it isn't true.

So if a kid is teased for having a cleft palate, and the kid really has a cleft palate, then it isn't cruel to tease the kid about it? Likewise if the kid's Mom is a lesbian, or the dad gets sent to prison?

That's cold.

[Matchett-PI]

"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.”"

Will he also point out what one of his own colleagues said?

Zoology professor, and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse stunned his listeners at an annual AAAS meeting in Boston by announcing that he had recently come to view evolution as ultimately based on several unproven philosophical assumptions.

He justified his change of heart by tracing a succession of leading Darwinist thinkers, including T. H. and Julian Huxley, who had viewed evolution as "something akin to a secular religion." At the end of his talk, Ruse opened the meeting for questions. Greeted by a moment of stunned silence, he leaned toward the microphone and asked, "State of shock?"

So how much damage has been done to the teaching of evolution as undisputed scientific fact since Ruse's concession? Dr. Arthur Shapiro, a zoologist at the University of California at Davis and a fellow symposium participant, published an account of the meeting in the anti-creationist NCSE Reports titled "Did Michael Ruse Give Away the Store?" Many Darwinists fear he did. .."

Ruse Gives Away the Store - says Darwinian doctrines are ultimately based as much on "philosophical assumptions" as on scientific evidence.

[Tribune7]

The case is about the Constitution -- specifically the ability for left-leaning judges to interpret the law without regard to the intent of the Founders or any legislative action.

[connectthedots]

I recall that Santorum slipped something strange into the "No student left behind" bill. Something about creationism. I may be remembering it all wrong.

It is part of the defendants answer to the complaint.

[Right Wing Professor]

Will he also point out what one of his own colleagues said?Zoology professor, and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse stunned his listeners at an annual AAAS meeting in Boston by announcing that he had recently come to view evolution as ultimately based on several unproven philosophical assumptions.

Michael Ruse, the author of Keep Intelligent Design Out of Science Classes?

[Matchett-PI]

"..I find your use of this Darwin quote to be dubious."

You need to take your dubiousness up with Michael T Ghiselin LOL

[connectthedots]

You are trying to compare physical problems with claims that are non-physical in nature. They are not the same. Of course, I would not tolerate teasing about physical deformities or anything else that unfairly ostracizes a child or any other person for that matter. I wouldn't tolerate a child telling another that she came from monkeys, because I don't believe it is true, as I have already said. My point was simply that her parents have little room to complain when they take a pro-evolution position.

[js1138]

This Michael Ruse?

In fact, although some ID supporters are literalists, most are not. The leaders of the movement--the retired lawyer Phillip Johnson, the biochemist Michael Behe, and the philosopher and mathematician William Dembski--all believe in a very old earth, and they all embrace some measure (for Behe, particularly, a large measure) of evolution. The point is that none of these people think that natural selection alone--or any natural-law-driven mechanism--can explain everything.

Having made this distinction, however, I do think that ID and creationism have more than a few links. Supposedly, the ID people do not specify what kind of intelligence is involved in getting over the hump of irreducible complexity, but it is pretty clear in their writings that this intelligence is the Christian God. No one thinks that a super-bright grad student on Andromeda is running an experiment here on planet Earth, and that every now and then he or she jiggles things about a bit to see what will happen. Dembski, for one, has been explicit that he sees the designing intelligence as the Logos talked of at the beginning of Saint John’s Gospel.

[zeeba neighba]

but it is pretty clear in their writings that this intelligence is the Christian God

And this, facts be what they are, is the stumbling stone. I suppose, if it was Oprahsis, moongoddess of the corn, black madonna, then a compromise could be made?

[highball]

I wouldn't tolerate a child telling another that she came from monkeys, because I don't believe it is true

Of course it's not true.

Monkeys and apes and humans share a common ancestor. Humans, monkeys and apes are all primates, but we did not "evolve from monkeys."

The childish teasing you suppose comes from a position of ignorance as to what evolution really means. That type of ignorance may well be expected of children.

The only real cure for this type of teasing is education, a subject which the Dover school board apparently has very little interest.

[js1138]

Or maybe this other Michael Ruse?

Why do I say this? Why should my beliefs--my evolutionary beliefs--be given unique status in biology classes? First, because teaching an essentially religious theory like ID--outside of the "comparative religions" scenario I've described--is illegal. ID is religion carefully disguised as science to get around the Constitution--that is why ID supporters rarely talk explicitly of God--but it is religion nevertheless. If the Supreme Court rules otherwise, then that will not be the first time that the Supreme Court has been wrong.

[PatrickHenry]

100