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.
Fortunately most scientists don't think so.
Fortunate Placemarker
"Fortunately most scientists don't think so."
Most scientists DO agree with me. Only a handful agree with you.
Most scientists would consider your "opinion" to be "fact?" Not very objective of them.
I don't know. As I said, it is a hunch that it will come to pass. The basis for my guess is that people are so very clever - when we put our minds to something, even something as mysterious as consciousness, we very often succeed.
"Most scientists would consider your "opinion" to be "fact?" Not very objective of them."
Most scientists understand that God is outside the realm of scientific inquiry. They do not include God in their theories, even when they personally believe in God. They are intelligent enough to know what science's limitations are.
Oh, right!
A good many of them adopt an opinion similar to yours, yes. Does that make them more scientific than someone who does not share your opinion and theirs?
Of course some do. I never claimed that "evolutionists" (whatever that means) are all saints.
But ID exists solely to pursue a political agenda. It was created for a political purpose, not borne out of a study of the evidence.
Surely you recognize the distinction?
"A good many of them adopt an opinion similar to yours, yes. Does that make them more scientific than someone who does not share your opinion and theirs?"
The vast majority of scientists believe as I do. And yes, when someone believes otherwise that does make their ideas less scientific.
I recognize some scientists believe in God and some don't.
You are told wrong. People are much, much smarter than all other living things. Our capacity for culture and language far surpass theirs. There is a vast gulf in many mental qualities. But, I don't know if our capacity of awareness and self awareness is as much superior.
Wouldn't this be the expected end result of evolution in all creatures?
No. Evolution drives species apart in qualities.
What makes you and your massive array of fellow scientists qualified to judge whether God is, or is not, beyond the purview of science?
No, you originally did not say *creationist leaders*, in your post #193, you said *creationists* . You only added the *leaders* part in post #286. Nice try.
And what exactly does that have to do with having a political agenda?
More precisely, what does that have to do ID having been created specifically to advance a political agenda?
"What makes you and your massive array of fellow scientists qualified to judge whether God is, or is not, beyond the purview of science?"
It's not about *qualifications*; it's about logical arguments. Your side has none. My side does. Your side is very much alone.
Pointers to this speech have been posted before during Ayn Rand discussions, and gotten airtime therefrom. I think she's gotten her fair due at FR.
I just don't get exactly what you mean by "political agenda" that ID people have. How do you think politics is involved?
If evolution drives species apart in qualities, then why are evolutionits so focused on the similarities of the species as proof for common descent? It may drive them apart in physical characterists to some small degree, but genetically they share much of the same characteristics, as we are constantly being told.
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.