Posted on 10/13/2005 4:47:22 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Placemarker
She gave the court the majority it needed to affirm Roe v. Wade...[snip]
This is highly misleading. The decision in Roe v. Wade was 7-2, not 5-4, with Byron White and William Rehnquist dissenting.
As several posters have tried to suggest to you, the social effects of a theory, accurately attributed or not, have nothing whatever to do with its scientific reliability.
HARRISBURG — To the mind of 15-year-old biology students, a scientific theory would be equivalent to one of Fox Mulder's harebrained ideas posited each week on "The X-Files."
And, because they can't question their teachers about it, intelligent design might be viewed as a "secret science," only to be discussed with the Dover Area School District's top-level administrators.
"It's absurd," Brian Alters, a science education expert, said Wednesday. "To bring up alternatives to the cornerstone of modern biology and then don't answer any questions?"
In testimony Wednesday, Alters, an associate professor at McGill University in Montreal, picked apart the four-paragraph statement read to Dover Area High School biology students each semester before they begin studying evolutionary theory.
The statement, which calls intelligent design an explanation that differs from "Darwin's view," is at the heart of the First Amendment battle being waged in U.S. Middle District Court.
Lawyers for the 11 parents suing the school district tried to prove with Alters' testimony that intelligent design is theology and not science; and that it's detrimental to students' education.
Under what is known as the "Lemon test" of the First Amendment's establishment clause, the U.S. Supreme Court requires that a law must have been adopted with a secular purpose.
But Alters said no such purpose exist in the statement. "Not only is it not good science education," Alters testified, "but it detracts from it."
In addition to the statement, students are told that their teachers will not answer any questions about intelligent design and if they, or their parents, have any questions they should contact Supt. Richard Nilsen, Asst. Supt. Michael Baksa or Joel Riedel, the high school principal.
Alters said the result is that students come away with the idea that intelligent design — which argues life is so complex it must have been designed — is a special secret not to be questioned in science class.
"Does it promote critical thinking?" Alters asked. "It stifles critical thinking."
Nilsen said later that no students had contacted him about the statement.
As Alters testified in an animated voice, he went through the statement line by line, describing in detail his objections to the wording.
" 'The Theory is not a fact'? That's just dead wrong. It's a theory and a fact."
It's a theory because it's a well-tested explanation that unites a broad range of ideas, he said, but it is also fact because it is so widely accepted in the scientific community. But students could come away with the misconception that theory means merely a hunch.
As he continued, Alters said the statement singles out "gaps" in evolutionary theory, unlike, for instance, gaps in the theory of trajectory. The message conveyed to students is that evolution is to be mistrusted.
During cross-examination, Dover attorney Robert Muise raised differences in perceptions between evolution and other scientific theories.
He asked Alters about Oxford University's Richard Dawkins' statement that Darwin's theory made it possible to be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
"Are you aware that the trajectory theory has ever made anyone an intellectually fulfilled atheist?" Muise asked.
Alters smiled and said he was not.
Alters, who has also written a book about what happens when a student's religious beliefs conflict with the teaching of evolution in science class, said the typical 15-year-old brain has trouble grasping that there are "multiple ways of knowing."
He said students tend to see the world more in terms of true or false statements. And because intelligent design introduces religion into science, it creates an atmosphere where students might feel forced to defend their faith.
Alters pointed to a long list of scientific and education associations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Association for Biology Teachers, that specifically denounce intelligent design in science class. He said he only knew of one education organization that endorses it, the American Association of Christian Schools.
[Omitted some background info at the end.]
multiple ways placemarker
The writer of this article seems to believe that a conservative supreme court is going to be an ignorant anti-science supreme court. I believe some ignorant anti-science people are going to be mighty disappointed if they think that will be the case. For one thing, all supreme court members and nominees have an education.</p>
You also should keep in mind that the constitutional question is far different from the policy question. Obviously, it's bad education policy to teach ID or psuedo-scientific criticisms of evolution. Whether it is unconstitutional to do so, however, is not as obvious. Nothing in the constitution mandates teaching of sound science.
I do agree with Scalia that the Lemon test is problematic. I am inclinded to think, however, that ID would violate the establishment clause even if a less strict test were applied. Nevertheless, it's not a straight forward question.
In the absence of precisely stated constitutional prohibitions, we must draw lines with reference to the three main evils against which the Establishment Clause was intended to afford protection: "sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity." [citation omitted]BURGER, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BLACK, DOUGLAS, HARLAN, STEWART, MARSHALL (as to Nos. 569 and 570), and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. DOUGLAS, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 625, in which BLACK, J., joined, and in which MARSHALL, J. (as to Nos. 569 and 570), joined, filing a separate statement, post, p. 642. BRENNAN, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 642. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in No. 89 and dissenting in Nos. 569 and 570, post, p. 661. MARSHALL, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of No. 89.Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion [citations omitted], finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
[big snip]
Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable. [citations omitted]. Fire inspections, building and zoning regulations, and state requirements under compulsory school-attendance laws are examples of necessary and permissible contacts. Indeed, under the statutory exemption before us in Walz, the State had a continuing burden to ascertain that the exempt property was in fact being used for religious worship. Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a "wall," is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship.
This is not to suggest, however, that we are to engage in a legalistic minuet in which precise rules and forms must govern. A true minuet is a matter of pure form and style, the observance of which is itself the substantive end. Here we examine the form of the relationship for the light that it casts on the substance.
In order to determine whether the government entanglement with religion is excessive, we must examine the character and purposes of the institutions that are benefited, the nature of the aid that the State provides, and the resulting relationship between the government and the religious authority.
[big snip]
In Walz it was argued that a tax exemption for places of religious worship would prove to be the first step in an inevitable progression leading to the establishment of state churches and state religion. That claim could not stand up against more than 200 years of virtually universal practice imbedded in our colonial experience and continuing into the present.
The progression argument, however, is more persuasive here. We have no long history of state aid to church-related educational institutions comparable to 200 years of tax exemption for churches. Indeed, the state programs before us today represent something of an innovation. We have already noted that modern governmental programs have self-perpetuating and self-expanding propensities. These internal pressures are only enhanced when the schemes involve institutions whose legitimate needs are growing and whose interests have substantial political support. Nor can we fail to see that in constitutional adjudication some steps, which when taken were thought to approach "the verge," have become the platform for yet further steps. A certain momentum develops in constitutional theory and it can be a "downhill thrust" easily set in motion but difficult to retard or stop. Development by momentum is not invariably bad; indeed, it is the way the common law has grown, but it is a force to be recognized and reckoned with. The dangers are increased by the difficulty of perceiving in advance exactly where the "verge" of the precipice lies. As well as constituting an independent evil against which the Religion Clauses were intended to protect, involvement or entanglement between government and religion serves as a warning signal.
Finally, nothing we have said can be construed to disparage the role of church-related elementary and secondary schools in our national life. Their contribution has been and is enormous. Nor do we ignore their economic plight in a period of rising costs and expanding need. Taxpayers generally have been spared vast sums by the maintenance of these educational institutions by religious organizations, largely by the gifts of faithful adherents.
The merit and benefits of these schools, however, are not the issue before us in these cases. The sole question is whether state aid to these schools can be squared with the dictates of the Religion Clauses. Under our system the choice has been made that government is to be entirely excluded from the area of religious instruction and churches excluded from the affairs of government. The Constitution decrees that religion must be a private matter for the individual, the family, and the institutions of private choice, and that while some involvement and entanglement are inevitable, lines must be drawn.
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.