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]

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

Please do not insult the non-historical sciences that actually produce results by saying that. I think the folks who produced the atom bomb might disagree.

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

OK...Whatever.

[microgood]

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

Thanks for the description. It could definitely be in a philosophy class.

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.

Correct. They should be more clear but there is philosophy behind his thought process.

[microgood]

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

Do you know when the syllabus was originally created?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Please do not insult the non-historical sciences that actually produce results by saying that. I think the folks who produced the atom bomb might disagree."

Nice non rebuttal. And nice display of ignorance regarding historical vs. *non-historical* science.

"OK...Whatever."

The perfect creationist response to any scientific theory. :)

[furball4paws]

You can ping me if you decide to go ahead.

[microgood]

The difference being?

Common descent refers to descent from earlier species. Universal takes us all back to a singularity of life creation. Obviously the amount of evidence for the latter is more lacking than the former and of course you cannot get there at all from DNA evidence since we have no idea what that singularity consisted of.

Saying we all came from the same original life form because all life has similar characteristics is non-falsifiable and would basically make universal common descent a non-theory.

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

You go me there.

[Sola Veritas]

"Philosophy classes have no place in high school anyway."

I find this statement humorous. Earlier many were saying that ID should be taught in a "philosopy" class and that would be OK; just keep it out of a "science" class.

Is the view now that under no circumstances will alternative origens explanations be allowed, even as a philosophical view?

Whatever, do most of you know that "Philosophy" is the love of wisdom or love of science?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Whatever, do most of you know that "Philosophy" is the love of wisdom or love of science?"

Do you know that is an idealized view of what philosophy should be?

[microgood]

Nice non rebuttal. And nice display of ignorance regarding historical vs. *non-historical* science.

This is coming from a guy who thinks universal common descent is the most supported scientific fact going, which brings ignorance to a level far beyond what I can understand.

The perfect creationist response to any scientific theory. :)

Sorry, I just can't stand childish word games.

[Sola Veritas]

"Welcome to another evo backslapping fest."

Yep, wait until they run out of Christians to bash. Then they can turn on each other to see who is the fittest. Hey, if you think you are just an evolved animal, may as well act like one.

[b_sharp]

"I was thinking about something observable like one species changing into another - that would be good! And then repeat it so it can verified then - Ah yes -then we have a little science happining. Until then we have vivid imagination.

Strictly speaking and using the scientific definition of species, we have directly observed speciation. As far as the creationist definition of speciation which requires a species belonging to one 'kind' changing into a species of another 'kind' it just does not happen and is in no way a part of evolution or the ToE. It is a straw man.

If you expect all observations in science to be 'direct' observation you are due for a rude awakening. Almost all science is about indirect observation, observation of the affects not necessarily the causes. Geology did not observe the geologic column develop. What they observe is wind and water pushing material around and volcanoes depositing lava. They then extrapolate from what they know to what they did not observe. Plate tectonics is not observed directly, movement of plates is measured as tiny changes and the large scale movement of plates is inferred from a fair number of observations of effects which are the result of plate movement. Quantum mechanics measures not the actual particle/wave but the effect they have on other things.

What evolutionary scientists see are fossils that give a general indication of a sequence of changes from one species to another. What those same scientists observe and measure is the affect a change in an allele has on the morphology of a extant species. What those scientists observe and measure is the rate of mutation and the rate of morphological change in extant species. They then extrapolate those mechanisms to the broader time span of fossil changes.

These same scientists examine DNA sequences and measure the similarities and differences between extant species. They statistically analyze that data and determine when the two species diverged.

Note these two concepts from Newton:
(2) the same natural effects must be assigned to the same causes,
(3) qualities of bodies are to be esteemed as universal, and

What this in effect says is that what you find going on now is what went on in the past and what went on in the past is what is going on now. There is a consistency that can be relied on.

[Dimensio]

The guy was put on the syllabus before he died.

Really? When was the syllabus created.

Again, this is OK in Philosophy. We spent the first two years of Philosophy classes tearing down arguments.

Tearing down arguments with faulty science and well-debunked canards like the "second law of thermodynamics" pap?

Do you really think you can eliminate anyone from arguing for ID and against evolution?

Non-sequitur. No one is arguing this.

If you want to see Christianity savaged, read 19th Century German Philosophy. Nietzsche and others party on it pretty hard.

Non-squitur. This has nothing to do with the course in question.

One can make Biblical arguments in a Philosophy class.

No, because if you do that it becomes a religion class.

[Hacksaw]

Not to mention that atheism causes ignorance.

I think it is more of a chicken and egg type situation - many people who became atheists were already ignorant individuals to begin with - a rather misreable lot, allying themselves with anti-Americans such as the ACLU and Barry Lynn. Always minding other people's business.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"This is coming from a guy who thinks universal common descent is the most supported scientific fact going, which brings ignorance to a level far beyond what I can understand."

It is. The earliest trunk of the tree of life is blurry, but certainly after about 500 million years ago there is no scientific dispute that all life has a common ancestor. It is certain we have a common ancestor with chimps, for instance. Only a zealot could think otherwise after looking at the ERV evidence.

"Sorry, I just can't stand childish word games."

You really think "Ok...whatever" is a valid argument?

[wyattearp]

Thanks for the description. It could definitely be in a philosophy class.

That was just one snippet. To get a full perspective, read the entire complaint (it's not very long) at:

(The actual lawsuit)

It goes into a lot more detail. It is really the only way to fully understand the complaint, and also the best way to understand why the school cancelled the course rather than fight the lawsuit.

[jennyp]

Hey, if you think you are just an evolved animal, may as well act like one.

That's highly evolved to you, buster! :-)

[RightWhale]

do most of you know that "Philosophy" is the love of wisdom or love of science?

Beware conjurors, magicians, jugglers, charlatans, musicians and philosphers.

[microgood]

Tearing down arguments with faulty science and well-debunked canards like the "second law of thermodynamics" pap?

Normally in philosophy you attack the logic of the arguments or assumptions related to interpreting evidence, more from a logical and reasoning aspects and not so much at the detail level. But you could take, say an event like the dating of a fossil, and analyze the logic that came to the conclusion of the age of the fossil all the way back to the formulas that were created to explain the behavior of radioactive decay.

No, because if you do that it becomes a religion class.

Then what do you suppose all universities discuss in their Philosophy of Religion classes?

[Dimensio]

Normally in philosophy you attack the logic of the arguments or assumptions related to interpreting evidence, more from a logical and reasoning aspects and not so much at the detail level. But you could take, say an event like the dating of a fossil, and analyze the logic that came to the conclusion of the age of the fossil all the way back to the formulas that were created to explain the behavior of radioactive decay.

But that's a scientific argument, not a philosophical claim. And why didn't you answer my question about when the syllabus was written?

Then what do you suppose all universities discuss in their Philosophy of Religion classes?

Typically various religious claims are examined to determine the meaning and justification. That's not comparable to assuming Biblical literalism as fact from the start and "interpreting" scientific claims accordingly.

[microgood]

And why didn't you answer my question about when the syllabus was written?

Actually I was confused because that is the same question I asked someone else. I do not know when it was created but I assume it was created before he died, otherwise why would he be on it?