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.

[microgood]

...."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.

I have a degree in Philosophy. This is clearly within the realm of a Philosophy of Science or Philosophy of Religion course.

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.

Any argument in science is a legitimate field of discussion in philosophy, as is anything that involves human thought. Here is a link from a renowned physicist that discusses scientific arguments in philosophy:

The Nature and Philosophy of Science

Granted the discussion may not be as disciplined as it probably should be, but why do you care anyway, since it is not being taught in science class and it is an elective. You care because you cannot stand anyone who would dare question your dogma.

There are clearly many weak arguments in evolutionary theory. Universal common descent is one of them. So is random mutation as the mechanism for change. My Philosophy of Science teacher use to savage Darwin's thought process as well as many other scientists all the way from Galileo to Einstein.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Universal common descent is one of them."

lol Common descent is one of the best supported facts in science.

"So is random mutation as the mechanism for change."

That's not postulated as a mechanism for change. Natural selection is though.

"My Philosophy of Science teacher use to savage Darwin's thought process as well as many other scientists all the way from Galileo to Einstein."

Just goes to show how little a degree in philosophy means. :)

[DaveyB]

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

That sounds unscientific and even philosophical - but then as you have observed I'm no expert ;-)

[microgood]

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?

The guy was put on the syllabus before he died.

It's an anti-evolution course, not an ID course. Falsifying evolution will not amount to evidence that ID is correct.

Again, this is OK in Philosophy. We spent the first two years of Philosophy classes tearing down arguments. Do you really think you can eliminate anyone from arguing for ID and against evolution? If you want to see Christianity savaged, read 19th Century German Philosophy. Nietzsche and others party on it pretty hard.

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.

One can make Biblical arguments in a Philosophy class. And one can tear them down. You may think this class is biased, and I am sure it is, but I never took a course in college in the Liberal arts majors that wasn't. All my philosophy teachers had their bent, and made no bones about it.

[microgood]

Common descent is one of the best supported facts in science.

I said universal common descent, not common descent.

"So is random mutation as the mechanism for change."

From what I hear, natural selection has to have something to select.

Just goes to show how little a degree in philosophy means. :)

Well, at least they teach us to read.

[jennyp]

You may be looking at this all wrong. The alleged "discovery" that Hesperopithecus dawsonii was "really" only a pig's tooth might be the nefarious evolution conspiracy cover up; and you've fallen for it! You see an ape in North America would really be evidence AGAINST evolution and for creationism, since apes supposedly evolved in Africa long after the continents separated. Apes should have never been here on the evolutionary scheme!

You mean Henry Osborn went back to the site 2 years later and planted a fake pig's jaw to kill his own discovery? Wow, I never thought of that! You may be onto something here.

After all, they did the same kind of thing to discredit Piltdown Man & his discoverers... :-)

[Stultis]

Spin all you want. The point of the course didn't have a damn thing to do with "philosophy". It was an anti-evolution/creation Bible course pure and simple. At least be honest about it.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I said universal common descent, not common descent."

Universal common descent is one of the best supported facts in science.

"From what I hear, natural selection has to have something to select."

You hear correctly. That doesn't make random mutation the mechanism of evolutionary change.

"Well, at least they teach us to read."

Not good enough, apparently.

[b_sharp]

"I said universal common descent, not common descent."

The difference being?

"From what I hear, natural selection has to have something to select.

How about a new allele or two? How about an existing allele under new conditions?

[DaveyB]

Universal common descent is one of the best supported facts in science.

Listen up class once upon a time...

[wyattearp]

You did not respond to the description of the course.

Here is a description of the course, from an earlier post.

(Go to post 166, I can't get the hyperlink to work properly)

Here is part of the description:

" The class will take a close look at evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological, and Biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin’s philosophy is not rock solid. This class will discuss Intelligent Design as an alternative response to evolution. Topics that will be covered are the age of the earth, a worldwide flood, dinosaurs, pre-human fossils, dating methods, DNA, radioisotopes, and geological evidence. Physical and chemical evidence will be presented suggesting the earth is thousands of years old, not billions. The class will include lecture discussions, guest speaker, and videos. The class grade will be based on a position paper in which students will support or refute the theory of evolution."

Note: the Theory of Evolution is not "Darwin's Philosophy", it is Darwin's Scientific Theory. The description is a flat-out lie from the get-go.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Listen up class once upon a time..."

"...There used to be people called creationists who didn't like science. No, I kid you not. Such people once existed. They worshiped a book instead of examining the world around them."

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Listen up class once upon a time..."

"...There used to be people called creationists who didn't like science. No, I kid you not. Such people once existed. They worshiped a book instead of examining the world around them."

[Stultis]

EXACTLY! The American ape, Hesperopithecus dawsonii, was PROOF that the continents really had been divided in the Biblical "day of Peleg," just as Henry Morris claimed, not hundreds of millions of years ago as the evilutionists fantasize. Likewise "Nebraska 'Man' (Ape)" is PROOF that there really was a global temperate environment under the pre-flood canopy. Apes could live and migrate anywhere! Osburn's excitement at a new find got the better of him at first, but he soon realized that this evidence HAD TO BE SUPPRESSED!!! And just like Piltdown, we've actually succeeded in getting the creationists to play along with the coverup!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

I only posted this once. Honest. :)

[dread78645]

The guy was put on the syllabus before he died.

Nope. Crick died July 2004. The syllabus was voted on December 2005.

[DaveyB]

"...There used to be people called creationists who didn't like science...."

Correction -----
There used to be a bunch of people who had a proper view of science and did not make naturalistic presuppositions. They included some of the great scientists of past like Kepler, Newton, the man credited with the scientific method - Francis Bacon. In fact for many hundreds of years when science was laying the foundation for our modern technology almost all scientists were thiestic and firmly believed in creation.

[PatrickHenry]

Nope. Crick died July 2004. The syllabus was voted on December 2005.

And he renounced evolution on his deathbead.
</creationism mode>

[jennyp]

Ignorance is a part of the human condition - atheism just makes it permanent.

Creationist lie #324: all who accept evolution are atheists.

Not to mention that atheism causes ignorance. I'm reminded of the words of this great creationist writer, whom I'm sure DaveyB agrees with:

The foremost and inherent characteristic of the members of an ignorant society is their unwillingness to develop a consciousness of Allah. Thus, people in this state of ignorance simply avoid complying with the commandments of Allah, having developed their own moral principles and a way of thinking contrary to everything approved of as being right by the Qur’an. The Qur’an, the last Divine Book, provides all the answers to all possible questions the individual might raise throughout his life. It offers all the key explanations and solutions which he needs in every aspect of his life.

Despite the existence of the Qur’an — the only guide to the true path for humanity — people in this state of ignorance abandon this precious source of wisdom and resort to their own limited thinking faculties to determine how to spend their lives so as to make them rewarding. Considering this fact, the mentality of such a society definitely proves to be “ignorant” when compared with the ideal mentality described in the Qur’an. In the following sections of the book, further scrutiny of the way of living favoured by the ignorant society will give us a better understanding of its primitive nature.

[narby]

By the way, awesome speech.

Maybe it deserves a thread on FR all by itself?