Posted on 01/04/2006 12:55:35 PM PST by A. Pole
Will the federal courts, and the people who rely on the federal courts to enforce secular ideals, ever get it? The anti-school-prayer decisions of the past 40 years—not unlike the pro-choice-in-abortion decisions, starting with Roe vs. Wade—haven’t driven pro-school-prayer, anti-choice Americans from the marketplace of ideas and activity.
Neither will U.S. Dist. Judge John Jones’ anti-intelligent-design ruling in Dover, Pa., just before Christmas choke off challenges to the public schools’ Darwinian monopoly.
Jones’ contempt for the “breathtaking inanity” of school-board members who wanted ninth-grade biology students to hear a brief statement regarding Darwinism’s “gaps/problems” is unlikely to intimidate the millions who find evolution only partly persuasive—at best.
Millions? Scores of millions might be more like it. A 2004 Gallup Poll found that just 13 percent of Americans believe in evolution unaided by God. A Kansas newspaper poll last summer found 55 percent support for exposing public-school students to critiques of Darwinism.
This accounts for the widespread desire that children be able to factor in some alternatives to the notion that “natural selection” has brought us, humanly speaking, where we are. Well, maybe it has. But what if it hasn’t? The science classroom can’t take cognizance of such a possibility? Under the Jones ruling, it can’t. Jones discerns a plot to establish a religious view of the question, though the religion he worries about exists only in the possibility that God, per Genesis 1, might intrude celestially into the discussion. (Intelligent-designers, for the record, say the power of a Creator God is just one of various possible counter-explanations.)
Not that Darwinism, as Jones acknowledges, is perfect. Still, “the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent scientific propositions.”
Ah. We see now: Federal judges are the final word on good science. Who gave them the power to exclude even whispers of divinity from the classroom? Supposedly, the First Amendment to the Constitution: the odd part here being the assumption that the “free speech” amendment shuts down discussion of alternatives to an establishment-approved concept of Truth.
With energy and undisguised contempt for the critics of Darwinism, Jones thrusts out the back door of his courthouse the very possibility that any sustained critique of Darwinism should be admitted to public classrooms.
However, the writ of almighty federal judges runs only so far, as witness their ongoing failure to convince Americans that the Constitution requires almost unobstructed access to abortion. Pro-life voters and activists, who number in the millions, clearly aren’t buying it. We’re to suppose efforts to smother intelligent design will bear larger, lusher fruit?
The meeting place of faith and reason is proverbially darkish and unstable—a place to which the discussants bring sometimes violently different assumptions about truth and where to find it. Yet, the recent remarks of the philosopher-theologian Michael Novak make great sense: “I don’t understand why in the public schools we cannot have a day or two of discussion about the relative roles of science and religion.” A discussion isn’t a sermon or an altar call, is it?
Equally to the point, what does secular intolerance achieve in terms of revitalizing public schools, rendering them intellectually catalytic? As many religious folk see it, witch-hunts for Christian influences are an engrained part of present public-school curricula. Is this where they want the kids? Might private schools—not necessarily religious ones—offer a better alternative? Might home schooling?
Alienating bright, energized, intellectually alert customers is normally accounted bad business, but that’s the direction in which Darwinian dogmatists point. Thanks to them and other such foes of free speech in the science classroom—federal judges included—we seem likely to hear less and less about survival of the fittest and more and more about survival of the least curious, the least motivated, the most gullible.
"Beliefs" have no place in a science room in any manner, only that which is true "science" belongs, you know...all that stuff that follows the scientific method. WTF has said that religion is all mysticism and beliefs? I was talking about ONLY this notion of ID being a "belief", but if you wanna go there, NOTHING having to do with religion belongs in a SCIENCE classroom, you know...the basis of your headline. Nice strawman though.
Things like "human rights" and "justice" which may have notions of spirituality that are taught in school have nothing to do with the evolution/ID debate and the attempt to discredit the ET in a science class by introducing into a science room the baseless notion of ID. Nice red herring.
Science being or not being amoral has nothing to do with any discussions on this matter, that's a subjective judgement that can be foisted upon ANYTHING. Police can be amoral too, so can doctors, so can YOU. "Amorality" is yet another red herring.
Slippery slope alert. Communist secularism and French secularism have nothing to do with what is happening in the United States unless you follow the illogic of a slippery slope argument.
"Could you mention in the science classroom that it is wrong to steal? "It is not a valid scientific theory"!"
Apples and oranges. Sure, you could mention it, but don't pass it off as a scientific theory. That's what ID is doing here, and this is simply unacceptable in public schools.
This is not amoral but rather immoral. "
OK - I see your point there.
"Science, on the other hand, is truly amoral because morality is irrelevant to it (though not irrelevant to its practitioners)."
As it should be. 'Good science' is about being objective and keeping emotion out of observation.
Nothing so long as the rest of the story is told. Those were some very bad days for some scientists.
My intention here is not to say that the discussion of ID doesn't belong in the SCHOOL, just that it belongs in a non-science class like philosophy or theology (if they even teach that any more). Science classes are for teaching science and scientific thinking, not for debating baseless and unprovable hypotheses.
bump
Not quite correct. That's not what the statement said. To clarify, I've posted the complete statement below.
The statement clearly and plainly stated that 'ID is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view' and also recommended the 'reference' book, "Of Pandas and People".
The problem is that Darwin's theory doesn't address the origin of life and the 'reference' book is thinly-veiled creationism.
First, the board passed a resolution that said that they were going to teach "other theories of evolution".
ID is not a theory of evolution, but of the origin of life.
As an aside, the boards resolution plainly stated, as seen in blue, that they were not going to teach the origin of life.
But, in the statement they gave to teachers to read, we see that they are plainly stating that "Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life".
And to further muddy the waters, the teachers' statement says that the "school leaves the discussion of the origin of life to individual students and their families."
All of it is one lie layered on another and they got caught.
This is why they lost the case and why they got booted out of office afterward.
On October 18, 2004, the Defendant Dover Area School Board of Directors passed by a 6-3 vote the following resolution:
Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of Life is not taught.
On November 19, 2004, the Defendant Dover Area School District announced by press release that, commencing in January 2005, teachers would be required to read the following statement to students in the ninth grade biology class at Dover High School:
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.
"Are you saying that if in some remote corner of Alabama thelocal school board lets creationism to be taught in school this small puncture will explode the balloon of American greatness?
I think that Celebration of Diversity and homosexual training does more harm. And the way to the 3rd world is through the open borders."
No....but if enough little pissant school boards around the country do it......it would be a start down hill
on your comments on 'Diversity' and the open borders, you are 100% correct.
That's a misconception. The concept of species struggling for superiority comes from Lamarck. Darwinism has no intentional "motive"; it's just death-take-the-hindmost.
Are you equaling Islamic beliefs with Christianity? When Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan had "things like science" and when did they replace them? How come that science itself was CREATED by the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages? Do you think that science could exist without philosophy?
I recommend you reading the book by son of Madalyn Murray O'Hair: My Life Without God. William J. Murray grew up in a "family" free from religion, yet he survived it too.
But should not this matter be left to the local citizens and elected school boards? Yes they can be mistaken and surely they will be on occasion, but so can be the courts and ACLU. The courts are not infallible and they should not usurp the whole power.
"How come that science itself was CREATED by the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages? Do you think that science could exist without philosophy?"
Perhaps you are unaware that science predates the Roman Catholic Church? The Greeks practised it, but they called it "natural philosophy." So yes, by extension, science came out of a particular specialty of philosophy. But the RCC actually first stymied science before finally accepting it (the smell of burning heretics must have been too much); they most certainly did NOT invent or create it.
Funny, though, because Islam claims to have invented science too. . .
Didn't Darwin caution against compassionate accomodation?
Yeah sure, the University of Bologna, Sorbonne, Oxford, Cambridge they were all Islamic madrasas, or maybe they were the creation of the brave atheists and secularists.
"Traditional values"? Wait, wait, wait; I thought that ID was all about providing a scientific alternative to the ToE?
/sarc
Harvard by Congregationalists
Yale by Congregationalists
Princeton by Presbyterians
Brown by Baptists
etc, etc ...
Absolutely not. I pay taxes so that public schools can be built to educate my (hypothetical) children. If I'm paying cold cash and putting my kids in the school's hands, then I am sure as hell not going to allow that school to sacrifice science for some crypto-creationist malarkey!
Do you think that exposing your "(hypothetical) children" to mention of God or Creationism will be more harmful than training them by homosexual activist in virtues of diverse life styles? And how likely it is that you will live in rural Alabama?
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.