Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Calif. School Scraps 'Intelligent Design' [El Tejon litigation]
The Dispatch (Lexington, N.C.) ^ | 17 January 2006 | JULIANA BARBASSA

Posted on 01/17/2006 11:24:31 AM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: bibleidolatryloses; biblethumpers; creationisminadress; crevolist; evolution; goddooditamen; ludditefundies; scienceeducation; setbackforkooks; superstitions; yeccultists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 441-451 next last
To: edsheppa
You hate state earlier that philosophy really has little affect on modern science in the 19th and 20th centuries. The link I provided showed the influence of philosophy on the development of the scientific method, including the idea that theories should be testable, which was done by a philosopher name Karl Popper, who had a huge influence on modern science, and just died in 1994.

Here is a quote:

The most important philosopher of science since Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Sir Karl Popper finally solved the puzzle of scientific method, which in practice had never seemed to conform to the principles or logic described by Bacon. Instead of scientific knowledge being discovered and verified by way of inductive generalizations, leaping from data into blank minds, in terms that go back to Aristotle, Popper realized that science advances instead by deductive falsification through a process of "conjectures and refutations."

He was highly regarded by many scientists.
261 posted on 01/17/2006 7:41:33 PM PST by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: microgood
I think the folks who produced the atom bomb might disagree.

No.

262 posted on 01/17/2006 7:43:26 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

You do have a point there.


263 posted on 01/17/2006 7:48:39 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; CarolinaGuitarman

But was Francis Crick in Nebraska in 1966?


264 posted on 01/17/2006 7:50:00 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I think we should teach the controversy.

Absolutltely.

Because every REAL Christian knows that it was Time Magazine.

265 posted on 01/17/2006 7:57:58 PM PST by dread78645 (Intelligent Design. It causes people to lie - joebucks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman; DaveyB

So, which creationists don't like science? Any examples? Citations, please.


266 posted on 01/17/2006 8:29:17 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

Comment #267 Removed by Moderator

To: microgood
You hate [sic?] state earlier that philosophy really has little affect on modern science in the 19th and 20th centuries.

No, this is what I said

I'd say a major theme of 19th and 20th century science was the realization that philosophical musing isn't very useful for gaining knowledge about the world.
You do see, don't you, that Popper's "philosophy" moved science further away yet again from metaphysics? Given a history littered with refuted and transcended theories, I doubt, for example, you'll find physicists who think QM is a True And Complete Account of the world.
268 posted on 01/17/2006 8:35:53 PM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

"Why? Why can't I simply say that I haven't the information required to make an informed choice?"

First, you can do whatever you darn well please. Second, your statment indicates you are an agnostic not an Atheist. An Atheist believes there is no God.

BTW, you do have enough information to make an informed choice. Read Richard Dawkins in support of Atheism and read G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis in support of Theism and Christianity.

Make a choice...don't be a wimpy agnostic!


269 posted on 01/17/2006 8:40:11 PM PST by fizziwig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

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

Atheist or Christian...whatever....its still sleazy.

Those who use the straw man are condemned to be one some day.....brainless twits!!!!!!!!


270 posted on 01/17/2006 8:51:30 PM PST by fizziwig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Syncretic
Honest answers from Darwinists to 1-4 are, in each case, "I don't know."

True for 1-3, but my hunch for #4 is that, yes, human consciousness, or something very much like it, will be created in the lab.

Why do you limit it to human consciousness? Other animals are conscious. Some appear to be self-conscious. Some can be taught language.

To number five, the honest answer is "No."

The honest rejoinder is, what does that have to do with evolution?

271 posted on 01/17/2006 8:55:10 PM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

Comment #272 Removed by Moderator

To: metmom
So, which creationists don't like science? Any examples? Citations, please.

I will question the veracity of geology, radiometric dating, and any part of modern science that might support an old Earth and will continue to do so until I am convinced these methods are scientifically accurate.

Fester Chugabrew


273 posted on 01/17/2006 9:32:54 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa; Syncretic

But there is a difference between intelligence and consciousness and self-awareness. It really does raise an interesting question. Why, on all this planet, did only humans attain the level of self-awareness and morality that is evident in them? There are other species that are as intelligent as humans we are told; dolphins, for example, and yet for the level of intelligence that some animals display and even their ability to communicate, why is it that this only happened in humans? Wouldn't this be the expected end result of evolution in all creatures? Haven't some of them been around even longer and had more time to develop further than humans? How do evolutionists explain this?


274 posted on 01/17/2006 9:34:15 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; Fester Chugabrew

But that isn't really not liking science and it isn't rejecting science. Don't scientists question stuff all the time; test and retest? I thought that was part of scientific investigation. There are apparently even questions concerning things like the 1st Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Gravitation, from what I've read on recent threads.


275 posted on 01/17/2006 9:42:07 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: metmom
There are other species that are as intelligent as humans we are told; dolphins, for example, and yet for the level of intelligence that some animals display and even their ability to communicate, why is it that this only happened in humans? Wouldn't this be the expected end result of evolution in all creatures? Haven't some of them been around even longer and had more time to develop further than humans? How do evolutionists explain this?

Evolution may not have favored intelligence. There may have been other factors more important: memory, hunting ability, communication, spatial awareness.

Some part of brain size relates to body size; it takes x amount of brain to run x amount of body. Humans are clearly above that amount compared to the rest of the primates. So are dolphins, and probably elephants and whales.

So, where does the excess go? Dolphins may be doing a lot of inter-relating and inter-communicating, via their sonar ability, which we haven't picked up on yet. Same for whales with their communication.

Morality is another question. What does it mean? Not bumping off your neighbors unnecessarily? I think for many definitions of morality many of our animal neighbors actually do pretty well in comparison to humans.

But its late and I haven't shaved...

I'll check in tomorrow for any responses.

276 posted on 01/17/2006 9:42:41 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Morality is another question. What does it mean? Not bumping off your neighbors unnecessarily? I think for many definitions of morality many of our animal neighbors actually do pretty well in comparison to humans.

Sad but true. Which is why saying a child molester is an animal is an insult to animals.

277 posted on 01/17/2006 9:49:28 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Out for the night bump.


278 posted on 01/17/2006 9:50:01 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

Comment #279 Removed by Moderator

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks for the ping!


280 posted on 01/17/2006 9:53:55 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 441-451 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson