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]

The content of philosophy courses probably isn't very important

All thought is based on philosophy, including scientific thought. All potential scientists should be required to understand the Philosophy of Science and be tested rigorously on it. Most scientists today are ignorant of the philosophical basis for their thinking to the detriment of all of us.

[DaveyB]

...10,000 clergymen endorse evolution...

Corrupt clergy do not speak for Christ. We have the Bible for that.

[VadeRetro]

I am that cancer - be afraid

I wonder if Hillary will be a better or a worse president than Bill was?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Evolution actually has not real scientific basis and cannot explain the origin of life."

Evolutionary theory has never been about the origins of life.

"It has never been proven, therefore it's still a theory."

No theories in science have ever been proven. What's your point? Theory is the highest form a claim gets in science; there is nothing to ascend to.

"Creationism, Intelligent Design can also be viewed as a theory as well..."

Not scientific theories.

"Therefore, I just see more and more excuses for taking out God from Public view. There will be more Pagan activity in the future......count on it...."

No theory in science deals with the existence or nonexistence of a God. Evolution is no different in that respect than the theory of gravity.

[dmz]

Why not?

[VadeRetro]

Since the vast majority of people believe in God, I think Atheism is best taught in an Abnormal Psychology class.

I use the word "creationism" to refer to various cults featuring an irrational rejection of modern science and motivated by some form of religious horror. Acceptance of evolution is not atheism, nor do most forms of religion practiced by most people fit the definition of "creationism."

[Dimensio]

Evolution actually has not real scientific basis This is a lie.

and cannot explain the origin of life.

It does not try to explain the origin of life. Attacking evolution for not explaining the origin of life is like attacking gravity for not explaining the origin of matter.

It has never been proven, therefore it's still a theory.

The above statement is meaningless. A more meaningful statement would be "it has never been disproven, therefore it's still a theory". Theories in science are never proven. Theory is the highest level that an explanation in science can acheive. There is nothing more certain in science than a theory.

A flawed theory at best.

You have yet to demonstrate any alleged flaws.

Creationism, Intelligent Design can also be viewed as a theory as well,

Wrong. Creationism fails as a theory right away because it appeals to the supernatural, which is outside of the realm of scientific inquiry. Intelligent Design fails as a theory based upon a total lack of evidence and a lack of any meaningful falsification criteria.

in the same light as Evolution since we are being neutral.

From a neutral standpoint, evolution is a scientific theory, creationism is a religious creation story and intelligent design is baseless conjecture.

Therefore, I just see more and more excuses for taking out God from Public view

This is because you are not neutral. This is evident in your assuming a specific "God", when in fact there are literally thousands of such entities that have been worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history.

There will be more Pagan activity in the future......count on it....

Non-sequitur. This "conclusion" has absolutely no relevance to the preceeding information whatsoever.

[VadeRetro]

Most scientists today are ignorant of the philosophical basis for their thinking to the detriment of all of us.

Nah! Philosophy is historically important, but not practically important.

[DaveyB]

I use the word "creationism" to refer to various cults featuring an irrational rejection of modern science and motivated by some form of religious horror...

I use the word "evolutionist" to refer to humanist cults featuring an irrational rejection of God's providence and motivated by some form of religious horror.

[VadeRetro]

How quaint!

[RightWhale]

The question is in one of the basic fallacious forms. Rephrase.

[PatrickHenry]

Philosophy is historically important, but not practically important.

I respectfully disagree (but that teacher in El Tejon was probably clueless):
Philosophy: Who Needs It? (Ayn Rand's Address To The Graduating Class Of The U S Military Academy at West Point, 1974).

[mlc9852]

I think she would have to be better. She learned from his mistakes.

[tgambill]

Point is, Evolution is considered to be the actual way living "things" are the way they are and how they got here. Evolution may not technically be about the origins or life but it is linked with the lightening, methane, small one cell organisms that eventually evolved into what we have now.

It's very simple, God in fact created life from nothing after he set up the processes to sustain it. Humans have only a four dimensional thinking capability and therefore cannot go beyond this. Therefore, humans try to explain the origins of life and such things in the four Dim. level. He cannot conceive of anything more than that......

Simple......that's it. there is scientific reasoning about God's creation and why evolution or other processes are not possible.....

[Right Wing Professor]

The El Tejon case, AU [Americans United] maintained, was even more problematic because it relied heavily on “young-earth” creationist materials that insist that the biblical Book of Genesis is literally true and is scientific a controversial view held by many fundamentalists but rejected by other Christians. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the teaching of creationism in public schools in 1987.

Exactly. And as we saw on a previous thread, the Discovery Institute dissociated itself from the El Tejon district as soon as they found out it was really a YEC course.

[banalblues]

In the right sided black box which says "The Wall", might I ask who they are?

[Dimensio]

Point is, Evolution is considered to be the actual way living "things" are the way they are and how they got here.

Evolution explains species diversity. It doesn't explain how life ultimately originated.

It's very simple, God in fact created life from nothing after he set up the processes to sustain it.

This is valid speculation, but there's no scientific basis for it.

Simple......that's it. there is scientific reasoning about God's creation and why evolution or other processes are not possible.....

Scientific? It's conjecture invoking the supernatural to fill in gaps in human knowledge. That's not science.

[VadeRetro]

I doubt she'll get caught with the interns, male or female.

[Rudder]

...thus avoiding arguing the real, and much stronger argument.

Here's your real and much stonger argument:" 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.

Of course she may be hallucinating, mentally ill or just plain goofy. But her god speaks to her and tells her what to teach.

Keep your nutball religiosity outta my science.

[highball]

If I.D. can't be taught in a Philosophy class, under which class should it be taught?

It can be taught in a philosophy class. This wasn't even close to that.

Quick questions: in what type of philosophy class is "scientific evidence" introduced to discredit a philosophy? And in what type of philosophy class is one particular "philosophy" taught as being the correct one?

Once again, the ID PC tries to redefine words that interfere with their political agenda.