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.
ID was created not to provide better science education, but to put a version of Christianity in the classroom. That was the stated purpose behind it originally, and it was the admitted purpose of the Dover school board (although they perjured themselves in an attempt to deny this).
And that's the difference.
ID was created to further a political goal, and the Theory of Evolution was formulated as a response to the physical evidence.
Now do you understand the distinction?
It doesn't sound like a political goal at all. Maybe a religious goal.
The rest was your own. At that time you could have qualified that it was the leadership, but you didn't. You clearly chose to mock creationists as a whole by not making that obvious from the start. It wasn't till anyone objected that you changed what your story.
Please. That's absurd on its face.
If it involves the public schools, if it involves people in public office, if it involves public policy, it's a political goal.
Well, where I live politics very rarely get injected to the education system. From what I've heard here (from my kids), they teach evolution and creationism and nobody has complained. Of course, I live in a red state.
That may be a question, but it is not the one you asked. You said this
5. Do you have any evidence supporting the belief that human consciousness (also known as the soul) does not survive the death of the body?to which I responded
...
To number five, the honest answer is "No."
The honest rejoinder is, what does that have to do with evolution?I'll try to be clear. Supposing we discover that our conscious awareness survives the death of the body, I doubt evolution will ever give an account for it.
However, it is an independent question whether or not evolution might give an account of the development of human consciousness.
On the surface, [human consciousness] would seem a competitive disadvantage, i.e. unnecessary overhead.
On the contrary, I think the value of awareness and self awareness are pretty clear; they bring the computing capacity of the brain to bear on some particular thing including, in the case of humans and a few other species, themselves. Being aware of oneself in relation to others seems pretty handy for social beings such as we.
Bully for you. You obviously don't have corrupt school board members like the ones Dover just tossed out on their ear.
Nevertheless, you cannot deny that ID was created specifically to pursue a political agenda, and that the Theory of Evolution was created in response to the evidence.
You're the one who started this "polical agenda" talk in your post #134. If you want to run away from that subject now, I can't say as I blame you.
I never run away. I just don't see it the same as you. I will agree to disagree.
Because common descent is a key claim of evolution and similarities, especially certain genetic similarities, forming a tree-like structure are evidence for it.
Oh really? By what logic do you and your massive array of like-opinionated scientists deduce that God is outside the purview of science?
Ad hoc is as ad hoc does.
Sort of like saying, "God is beyond the purview of science because he is beyond the purview of science." Yes, I see how you've got all the logic tied up there. How can you and your vast array of like-minded scientists say God is beyond the purview of science when you haven't done any work to deduce as much but only assume it? What makes you qualified to make such an assumption? Furthermore, what makes you qualified to speak on behalf of all scientific endeavor?
Fester, since you want to make the case that God is within the purview of science, I think it is incumbent upon you to prove it.
Show how an objective observer may objectively measure God, without invoking belief.
The proper way to treat the question is as if God may or may not be within the purview of science. Science is not qualified to make a judgement in the matter. By saying "God is not within the purview of science," one has already made a judgment that science cannot make. That judgment is one of opinion and has little to do with facts or logic.
If you do not think one ought to be qualified in order to speak to what science may or may not address, then I guess you don't mind after all who teaches science, or even what they teach. After all, it has nothing to do with "qualifications."
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.