Calif. School Scraps 'Intelligent Design' [El Tejon litigation]

The Dispatch (Lexington, N.C.) ^ | 17 January 2006 | JULIANA BARBASSA

[PatrickHenry]

A rural school district agreed to stop teaching a religion-based alternative to evolution as part of a court settlement filed Tuesday, a legal group said.

Frazier Mountain High School will stop teaching a philosophy class discussing the theory of "intelligent design" this week and won't teach it in the future, said Ayesha N. Khan, legal director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Officials at the El Tejon Unified School District were not immediately available for comment.

A federal judge in Fresno had been scheduled to hold a hearing Tuesday afternoon on whether to halt the class midway through the monthlong winter term.

A group of parents sued the district last week, saying it violated the constitutional separation of church and state by offering "Philosophy of Design," a course taught by a minister's wife that advanced the theory that life is so complex it must have been created by God.

"The course was designed to advance religious theories on the origins of life, including creationism and its offshoot, 'intelligent design,'" said the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court.

In a landmark lawsuit, Americans United for Separation of Church and State had successfully blocked Dover, Pa., schools last month from teaching intelligent design in science courses. [Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al..]

El Tejon school officials had claimed the subject was proper for a philosophy class.

The high school in the Tehachapi Mountains about 75 miles north of Los Angeles draws 500 students from a dozen small communities.

Sharon Lemburg, a social studies teacher and soccer coach who was teaching "Philosophy of Design," defended the course in a letter to the weekly Mountain Enterprise.

"I believe this is the class that the Lord wanted me to teach," she wrote.

Similar battles are being fought in Georgia and Kansas. Critics of "intelligent design" say it is biblical creationism in disguise, but defenders argue it is based on science and doesn't require adherence to any religious belief.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I still live and study the physical world, I just do not presume to make man's reasoning superior to God's special revelation."

In other words, you abandon what your eyes and reason tell you for what a book tells you. You have turned away from the world.

[shuckmaster]

I thought it was in philosophy

You were fooled. Remember, whenever you're dealing with a creationist, you're most likely dealing with a blatant liar.

[microgood]

Are you under the mistaken impression that absolutely no information regarding this class has been made public knowledged prior to this article, or are you just ignoring that fact because your argument crashes to pieces otherwise?

The only other article I saw was here California high school sued over 'intelligent design' class

Where I got the following quotes:

Superintendent John Wight, who did not return a phone call for comment, said last week that the class, "Philosophy of Design," was not being taught as science and was an opportunity for students to debate the controversial issue.

and:

One pro-evolution speaker listed on the syllabus declined to participate because he disagreed with the class topic, and another - Nobel laureate Francis Crick, who co-discovered the structure of DNA - had died more than a year earlier.

This seems a bit different than what was stated by the lying scum ACLU and ACU. After all, last time I checked Francis Crick was a very famous biologist who was going to teach this class. Sounds like it would have been an exciting thing to see for a budding biologist.

[Oztrich Boy]

The old Straw Man trick....invent your opponents argument to be weak and indefensible then strike it down, thus avoiding arguing the real, and much stronger argument.

Oh the irony. The "Atheists" using the tactics of the "Christians" (and winning)

[DaveyB]

You do know that the scientific culture didn't really get going until around that time, don't you?

That would be news to Newton, Keppler and Galileo.

[Dimensio]

After all, last time I checked Francis Crick was a very famous biologist who was going to teach this class. Sounds like it would have been an exciting thing to see for a budding biologist.

Please tell me that you're joking. PLEASE...

[furball4paws]

I predicted this would happen. The school board couldn't let it go to court. It would have lost, big time.

The approach in Kansqs is more interesting. Let's redefine science so Creationism can be taught. The problem is that as soon as a teacher tries to teach it, the lawsuits will be fast and furious. So there, the school board is trying to avoid personal involvement. Unfortunately some teacher will have to take the brunt. None of these ways of "sneaking" creationism into school will work.

[DaveyB]

In other words, you abandon what your eyes and reason tell you for what a book tells you.

Guilty! I am so guilty!
And I humbly throw my self on the mercy of the author of that book.

[Dimensio]

So there, the school board is trying to avoid personal involvement. Unfortunately some teacher will have to take the brunt.

So now the creationists will have to find their own John Scopes?

Somehow I don't see an Inherit the Wind-esque followup.

[Stultis]

The substance of this "philosophy" class consisted of videos presenting young-earth, flood-geology creationism. [...]

The article did not state what was in the class. And of course you cannot believe anything the ACLU or AU say about anything. Do you have any information about this course that says it is not about intelligent design besides the lying communist scum?

I'm not basing any of what I said on "the ACLU or AU". I don't even know what the latter is.

Do you have any information about this course that says it is not about intelligent design besides the lying communist scum?

Yeah. How about The Discovery Institute, the official organ of "Intelligent Design"?

Intelligent Design Proponents Distance Themselves from Creationists [El Tejon litigation]

Casey Luskin, an attorney with the Discovery Institute wrote a letter to John W. Wight, Superintendent of the El Tejon school district in California seeking to change the title or content of a class. The district is facing a lawsuit filed by parents over a course titled “Philosophy of Design” taught by Sharon Lemburg, the wife of a local minister.

According to Luskin’s letter “the course inaccurately mixes intelligent design with young earth creationism or Biblical creationism. Moreover, it appears that more than half of the course content deals with young earth creationist materials.” Luskin urged the school’s superintendent to “either reformulate the course by removing the young earth creationist materials or retitle the course as a course not focused on intelligent design.”

Or how about a description of the course by the school itself, likely written by the teacher herself?

California High School Sued for Teaching 'Intelligent Design'

An initial course description sent to parents in December said it would examine "evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological, and Biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin's philosophy is not rock solid."

..."theory," "scientific, biological and Biblical aspects"? Where's the "philosophy"? Granted it refers to "Darwin's philosophy," but secondarily in a sentence that's already described it as a scientific "theory," or at least a "theory" with "scientific, biological" aspects.

CLEARLY they wanted to engage evolution as a (putatively false) scientific theory. The business about "philosophy" was nothing but an attempt to avoid the legal baggage of creationism.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Guilty! I am so guilty!
And I humbly throw my self on the mercy of the author of that book."

Realizing you have a problem is the first step to recovery. :)

[furball4paws]

I was going to say that and it slipped past me. There was never any chance Scopes would be found innocent. In that the the legislature did the dirty wor..

I can't see a Scopes circus happening again.

[DaveyB]

Realizing you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

A hardy AMEN to that!

[WestVirginiaRebel]

I can't see a Scopes circus happening again.

Unfortunately, too many creationists seem to want one.

These people are living in the nineteenth century. Their fear of science proving them wrong has made them desperate at a time in which science is seeing some incredible breakthroughs in genetics and our understanding of the universe.

If God didn't want us to use our brains to figure stuff out, He wouldn't have given us the free will to explore our origins.

[DaveyB]

...He wouldn't have given us the free will ...

How are you so sure you do have free will?

[microgood]

Please tell me that you're joking. PLEASE...

You did not respond to the description of the course. Why is that? Here is another quote?

"An initial description sent to parents in December said the course would examine "evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological, and Biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin's philosophy is not rock solid."

What is your response?

[PatrickHenry]

I had never read that speech! Amazing.

Another service of Darwin Central.

[narby]

That would be news to Newton, Keppler and Galileo.

Yes, they were the leading edge. But they don't make a "scientific culture" all by themselves. Even if you add people like Franklin and other amateur experimenters.

[WestVirginiaRebel]

If we didn't then what would be the point of being able to disagree?

[Dimensio]

You did not respond to the description of the course. Why is that?

What's the point of dealing with someone who thinks that an invitation of a dead man as a guest speaker is a valid practice?

What is your response?

It sounds like they're going to rehash typical creationist canards without bothering to present any positive evidence for ID. It's an anti-evolution course, not an ID course. Falsifying evolution will not amount to evidence that ID is correct. Moreover, the admission that even some of the arguments will be Biblically based means that it's not a philosophy course, but rather a course that assumes the correctness of a specific religion.