Posted on 09/29/2005 6:22:55 PM PDT by wallcrawlr
A group of Nobel Prize winners should have done more homework before criticizing proposed science standards in Kansas, advocates of the guidelines said in a letter Thursday.
Intelligent design advocates pushing new standards, which would expose students to more criticism of evolution, say the laureates' complaints are an attempt to suppress debate on the issue.
The letter was signed by Bill Harris, a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and Greg Lassey, a former middle school science teacher, who helped draft the disputed language.
"We all want good standards," the letter said. "However, demeaning rhetoric that does not address specifics but serves only to belittle and misrepresent the changes is not helpful."
Earlier this month, 38 laureates, including prominent chemists, physicists and medical experts, asked the State Board of Education to reject the proposed standards.
The laureates, led by Holocaust survivor and author Elie Wiesel, said evolution is the foundation of biology and that it has been bolstered by DNA studies.
Many scientists see intelligent design as another form of creationism, which the Supreme Court has banned from public schools.
Intelligent design theorists believe the complexity of the natural world cannot be explained except by attributing creation to some higher intelligence.
The Kansas board expects to vote this year on the standards, which will be used to develop tests for students but would allow local boards to decide how science is taught.
The establishment clause...
Are you historically blind?
What specific religion is the federal government advocating?
Oh, it is a local decision. The federal government may actually be asked to overturn a local decision on the establishment clause.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm
As always, you have the constitution, exactly backwards.
Personally, I think the K-12 education system should be redone, parents like you should be given the voucher equal to the amount a school says it spends on the student, and you should be given the choice of where your kids go. Anywhere, parochial or not.
But then, the federal courts would not be able to interfere with local educational decisions. Like the ones you advocate.
But you sound kind of liberal to me.
LOL again Perfessor.
DK
No such thing.
-- in particular, the teaching of a disguised religious doctrine in a PUBLIC school science class, favorable toward one particular religious viewpoint.
What religion is being taught in Dover's biology class?
ID == "Wahh! Science is too hard! It must be magic!"
Right, hypocrisy from the technocrats, that would be you.
I'm analyzing the case on its legal merits.
No you're not, you're analyzing based on your belief system. Which is why your legal analysis leaves much to be desired.
jwalsh07 accuses me of 'glee' at the result, all the while claiming that the case against the school board amounts to 'thoughtcrime'. Bit of a disconnect there.
No disconnect at all. Legally speaking, motivation absent an action is non justiciable, period. And evidently my accusation of glee was right on target since you admit to glee a bit further down.
Yes, as a parent of public school kids, I do want my children taught biology and not superstitious nonsense. I'd prefer to handle the issue locally and democratically, as we have successfully done here in Nebraska.
Right, but having that statist streak forces you to conclude that you know better than the parents in Dover what is good for their children. And as such, you don't hesitate to bring the power of the federal judiciary to bear.
Do I approve of a federal lawsuit as a last ditch alternative? Probably; I think the establishment clause is important, and ultimately, since its in the US constitution, there has to be some recourse through the federal courts. And I certainly take glee in theocrats making a pigs ear of the case.
The establishment clause is very important, a pity you don't understand it. And there is nothing in the constitution that allows federal courts to run local school boards at the behest of technocrats and leftists, you being the former absent a violation of rights. Nobody's rights are violated by the written statement read at the beginning of the school year. Absent coercion, the federal government has no business in local schools.
Of course, if we were discussing a different case, say the case of the student who sued his instructor at Texas Tech because the instructor would not write letters of recommendation for creationists, the sides would be reversed. In that case, intrusion of federal judges to protect the religious rights of a state university student would be entirely proper, and I'd be defending his individual right to write recommendations for whatever reasons he wanted.
You don't understand the free exercise clause either. More's the pity.
Yes, it's a culture war, and it's one that neither side is fighting with any particular set of consistent jurisprudential principles. So those of us on our high horses should dismount before we get thrown off and break something :-)
Professor, I've broken more bones than I care to remember. No big deal but please don't revert to the 'we all do it' canard. My philosophy is consistently applies. It is a philosophy consistent with the belief that the original intent of the constitution should always be the starting point and if that document needs changing it should be amended. It prevents culture wars and saves otherwise good folks from their own hypocrisy.
And I'm a 'statist', because I approve of intervention of the federal judiciary (in circumstances he doesn't like, of course, no problem intervening to uphold 'free exercise') to limit the power of local governments.
Yep, consistency, gotta love it.
But heck, for the benefit of us all why don't you take us throught the machinations that allows the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." to be interpreted to mean that the federal government has the power to intervene when the Dover school board requires a statement telling its students that the ToE has gaps.
I'm never to old to learn something new.
It would be useful for you to actually learn what the statement says. That was paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 states.
Intelligent Design is and explanation of the Origin of Life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.
Of Pandas and People is the text that was written as an exposition of creationism, in which the phrase 'intelligent design' was substituted for 'creationism' at the last minute.
In other words, the statement is clear promotion of a religious dogma - creationism - for non-secular purposes.
You can read the entire complaint here.
No such thing.
Do tell. That's a very flip and unexplained response to a well-known tenet of constitutional law.
What religion is being taught in Dover's biology class?
Quoting: "We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
Quoting from the "Goals" section:
Governing Goal #2: "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
Five-Year Objective 7: "Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory."
Your answer, sir: There is no religion being taught in Dover's biology class. The only group trying to get a specific religion -- Christianity -- taught in the Dover biology or science classrooms is the Dover School Board, aided and abetted by such entities at the Discovery Institute Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.
:-} Thanks but I've read it.
What religion has been established?
Would you withdraw your support of the ACLU in this case if they dropped the title of the book from the statement?
Do you understand that even case law, as contrived and stupide as it may be, does not proscribe creation science that is not coerced?
:-}. The phrase comes from a letter written by a President to a Baptist minister in Danbury, Ct. It has no precedential value since Presidents don't make law. There, I told you.
Your answer, sir: There is no religion being taught in Dover's biology class.
Case closed, next.
Christianity.
Would you withdraw your support of the ACLU in this case if they dropped the title of the book from the statement?
The title of the book? And leave in 'Intelligent Design', a.k.a. creationism in a cheap tuxedo? No way.
Anyway, I support the plaintiffs, not the ACLU. Politics makes strange bedfellows.
Do you understand that even case law, as contrived and stupide as it may be, does not proscribe creation science that is not coerced?
You think you can teach 'creation science' (an oxymoron) in a public school, even as an elective?
Oh, so you think that the fact that they're supporting the reading of a general statement favoring intelligent design as an actual alternative to evolutionary theory (which it's not) to everyone in the class at the beginning of the school year is inconsequential?
It's exactly what the Wedge strategists want -- a wedge into the science classroom door for their religious viewpoint. No matter how small, they have been trying to open that crack for years.
It's neither inconsequential nor unconstitutional and therein lies the problem with the case being in federal court.
It's exactly what the Wedge strategists want -- a wedge into the science classroom door for their religious viewpoint. No matter how small, they have been trying to open that crack for years.
You can certainly oppose that, you just shouldn't do it by making false constitutional arguments. There are several remedies avaiable to the folks in Dover. They can vote out the school board or they can vote with their feet. Thats the constitutional way.
It is perfectly acceptable for any schools to present the creation mythologies of any religion in the proper setting, i.e. a social studies or history class. The problem is that the ID proponents (Wedge strategists) are grasping for legitimacy by trying to get public science classrooms to present their religiously-founded ideas as actual science.
If it's such a great idea, let every Christian private school (particularly fundamentalist schools, because I'm not sure how happy the Catholic schools would be with this) teach creation science in their classrooms as much as they want. I'm sure some of those schools can and will produce good science students who could go on to major in biology or physics in college and then pursue postgraduate work. Let's see how much impact this breed of scientists has on the evolutionary research field.
(Prediction: zilch.)
Agreed. Just don't call it science.
I haven't heard of issues such as this being contested in state courts.
There are several remedies avaiable to the folks in Dover. They can vote out the school board or they can vote with their feet. Thats the constitutional way.
That's not an immediately available remedy. If the statement is read, the school board has achieved its goal and the Wedge has achieved a limited and temporary legitimacy. (Part of the problem is a school board making curriculum decisions that should be left to the schools and the teachers.)
You've gone way around the bend.
The title of the book? And leave in 'Intelligent Design', a.k.a. creationism in a cheap tuxedo? No way.
Good, your hypocrisy is intact.
Anyway, I support the plaintiffs, not the ACLU. Politics makes strange bedfellows.
Right, I knew that.
You think you can teach 'creation science' (an oxymoron) in a public school, even as an elective?
Of course it can, this isn't the Soviet Union. As long as it isn't coerced.
Oh good, insults. I win.
Well then.... if *YOU* can imagine how life is made, or if *ANYBODY* in the whole wide world thinks they know, let them dig out their little chemistry sets and whip some up.
Earth is chock full of life. It's exceedingly common.
If it is such a proved fact that it occurred by random events, then it should be EASILY possible to whip some up in a beaker.
Until you, or anyone else, can do that, don't be lecturing anyone with the "We know how. Just because you don't, doesn't mean it's not possible" routine.
My statement of fact still stands. No person on earth has ever been able to IMAGINE how to create life.
As for your earlier comment..
Well then, it must be beyond the ability of designers. So much for the "ID" presumption, eh?
(Walked straight into *that* one, didn't you?)
Boy, I sure can't argue with logic like that. I know when I'm beaten.
This almost incomprehensibly stupid point has been answered.
If you can imagine how a nuclear reactor is made, build me one.
Take your time. Monday will be soon enough.
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.