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.

[From many - one.]

Do you know when the syllabus was originally created?

It was not in 2004. Do you really want to keep this up? You'll just keep looking worse.

[Dimensio]

I do not know when it was created but I assume it was created before he died, otherwise why would he be on it?

So you made an assumption without actually having the facts. Alright.

[b_sharp]

"You go me there"

I'm not sure what this means. I simply answered your question: "From what I hear, natural selection has to have something to select.

[microgood]

But that's a scientific argument, not a philosophical claim

Any argument involving human thought is within the realm of philosophy.

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.

I would agree if that is what they were doing. The syllabus did not seem to say that.

I guess I am amazed about all the concern about this elective course that is not in a science class. Why do you even care?

[dread78645]

Do you know when the syllabus was originally created?

According to Sharon Lemburg, the instructor, sometime between the December 1st 2005 announcement and the December 14th review:

But concern has surfaced about the syllabus presented to the Board of Trustees. The instructor of the proposed course, Sharon Lemburg, says she wanted “to tell people about the ideas of Intelligent Design,” but that “Everything happened quickly. I had to have a syllabus overnight. I’m not an expert on this subject.” Lemburg is widely appreciated in the community and by this newspaper as the Lady Falcons’ successful soccer coach. She is certified to teach Geography and Health, with a social science degree. She quickly admits she is not certified to teach science.

Hurst is known as a Ph.D. geologist who works at Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. His two sons are students at the high school. He volunteersr time to help with the prestigious FMHS Robotics team. Trustee Kitty Jo Nelson said, “I was reassured when I saw Dr. Hurst’s name as one of the speakers.”

In fact, Hurst said in an interview Monday, Dec. 26: “This is false. I declined to be a speaker for the course in a phone conversation with Sharon Lemburg on December 1. On December 5 I delivered a letter by hand to Dan Penner objecting to the course as it is being presented and left a copy to be delivered to Superintendent John Wight.”
The other name listed alongside Hurst’s as an “evolutionist” on the syllabus is Francis Krich, an accidental misspelling (according to Lemburg) of Francis Crick, the Nobel Award winning co-discoverer of the double helix structure of the DNA molecule.
Unfortunately, this scientist’s name--although prestigious--was also placed on the speakers list without consent. Crick will not be speaking at Frazier Mountain High School during the school’s 19 day intersession. The distinguished Dr. Crick died in July 2004 at age 88.

-- Mountain Enterprise Dec. 30, 2005

[microgood]

I'm not sure what this means. I simply answered your question: "From what I hear, natural selection has to have something to select.

I was referring to mutations as something which gives natural selection to select and you pointed out something else which I did not think of. You are correct in pointing that out.

[b_sharp]

Thanks for clearing that up.

[microgood]

Do you really want to keep this up? You'll just keep looking worse.

I assumed the person who wrote the syllabus that was stated in the article would not put a dead person's name on it. It appears that I was wrong, or someone cutted and pasted another syllabus, or there was some evil plot.

I may have been naive, but I was not trying to deceive anyone.

[dread78645]

I do not know when it was created but I assume it was created before he died, otherwise why would he be on it?

Because Mrs. Lemberg was just picking notable names out of thin air.
I'm mildly amazed she didn't list Thomas Huxley or Carl Sagan.

[PatrickHenry]

You can ping me if you decide to go ahead.

I searched again, this time by keyword. Whaddaya know ... it's already been posted as a thread; but only an excerpt was used. No heavy-duty pings were employed. I don't believe there's a ping list for Ayn Rand, although there should be. Anyway, it's been posted, but it's a failed thread:

Philosophy: Who Needs It?

[microgood]

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.

I was not disputing the ERV evidence. But to extrapolate our ancestry with chimps to a singularity of a first life is a hypothesis at best given the information we currently have.

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

OK I give up. Random mutation has nothing to do with evolutionary change whatsoever. Which is of course exactly what I believe.

[mlc9852]

Not having read the transcripts of the trial, I am reluctant to call all creationists liars.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I was not disputing the ERV evidence. But to extrapolate our ancestry with chimps to a singularity of a first life is a hypothesis at best given the information we currently have."

You accept our common ancestry with chimps and other apes? :)

"OK I give up. Random mutation has nothing to do with evolutionary change whatsoever."

By itself, no. Without the selection element, mutation won't do anything. Creationists conveniently leave out the selection element (which is decidedly nonrandom.)

[From many - one.]

I do not think you were trying to be deceptive.

I do think you allowed your personal preconceptions to color your assumptions. Many of us who see no conflict between Christianity and evolution have been disturbed by a certain laxness among the creationists regarding accuracy and honesty. This was noted in the Dover trial and has reared its head again here.

[edsheppa]

At a glance I don't see that he says anything much different from what I said. But perhaps you show me where he says that science is based on a system of personal beliefs or makes metaphysical claims.

[microgood]

I do think you allowed your personal preconceptions to color your assumptions. Many of us who see no conflict between Christianity and evolution have been disturbed by a certain laxness among the creationists regarding accuracy and honesty.

It is possible. I am not a creationist nor do I subscribe to ID. On the other hand, I truly hate the ACLU and that other ACLU clone outfit, and absolutely would not believe anything they said unless it was collaborated by 20 other independent sources. They are well known and well documented liars.

[Doctor Stochastic]

...I suspect they don't actually know what Nebraska Man really was,...

Perhaps a cover of Life Magazine in 1966?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Perhaps a cover of Life Magazine in 1966?"

That was proven, you atheist liar. I read that issue when I traveled to Nebraska. Man, was it a good read.

[PatrickHenry]

post 110 by RaceBannon on 15 Jan 2006. Nebraska man was on the front page of Time Magazine.
post 143 by RaceBannon on 15 Jan 2006. No, it was in Life Magazine.
post 150 by RaceBannon on 15 Jan 2006. Nebraska man was in Life Magazine in 1966.
post 164 by Ichneumon on 15 Jan 2006. Nebraska man NOT in Life Magazine in 1966. [Slam dunk, shows search results.]
post 172 by RaceBannon on 15 Jan 2006. To Ichneumon: "PLEASE finally admit you were wrong??" [Tragic.]
post 197 by RaceBannon on 15 Jan 2006. I mean, it IS LIFE MAGAZINE, whatever... [Still clueless.]
post 201 by RunningWolf on 15 Jan 2006. Nebraska man WAS in Life Magazine in 1966. [Delicious howler!]

[PatrickHenry]

I think we should teach the controversy.