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.
Nonsense.
That's not what I said.
If taught as part of a philosophy class, ID is perfectly appropriate. This wasn't a philosophy class, no matter what they called it.
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?
Words mean things. This wasn't a philosophy class, it was a Sunday School class.
They are those CrevoSci participants who have, for one reason or another, been banned.
Did Dewey introduce anything new or lasting with his pragmatism?
I'm a card-carrying, union scientist. Anti-intellectual creationists are not allowed in the ranks of scientists.
"If I do assume a God, why should I assume it to be the God of the Bible?"
Good question...real good question. That was Exactly the problem that Einstein had when he came to the conclusion of a ready for this..."Superior Reasoning Power".....and not the doctrine of a personal God or God of the Bible.
I'm not putting off, I'm running....uh, trying to run a business after being back in the states only two years. By answering it will help improve my knowledge more anyway......
Tom
Cute. Hysterical over-reactions.
The bottom line here: if you don't want to keep losing in court, don't keep trying end runs around the Constitution....
:)) where did you find that...it's been ages since I saw that...damn....like the 50 foot women.....
Good answer!!!!! got me on that one, a blue ribbon come back....I'm from N.C. also by the way.....
"How is the abscence of theism a "religion", and why is it for nutballs?"
Atheism is religion because it requires a lot of faith to believe that there is no God. Typically today its faith in modern science, however, Atheism is as old as theism and predates modern science.
Its for nutballs because I said so tongue in cheek in my reply to another Freeper who implied that all religion is for nutballs.
LOL Now *that* was a funny post.
"I believe this is the class that the Lord wanted me to teach,"---No, just people like her who think their every move is a revelation from God.
I don't think its being taught in any class.
Pretty much what I expected; based on the facts that came out about this course, it became apparent it was a sham enterprise giving token acknowledgement to the evidence for Evolution whilst ladling on the religiously-based alternatives and anti-Evo hysteria, as promoted by 19 some videos produced by religious organizations, as thick as possible.
This confirms my previous sentiment that the Dover case will, in time, be seen as ID's "Waterloo." Judge Jones ripped asunder the camouflage behind which ID had been hiding, and shined the bright light of truth on it. In that light, ID was seen for what it really is, a iintellectually bankrupt shell intended as a battering ram to sneak particular religious views into the science class room while trying to evade the current jurisprudence that clearly holds that teaching Creationism in public schools is constitutionally impermissible.
Yes, I agree......he does us science. However there are other ways that are supernatural as well. Like someone mentioned earlier, as I am the same way, I almost never take one persons word for it...I must research...and doubt. God has this faith issue going on, but I have always questioned. As everyone here on this forum. I just tend to favor the Supernatural also using Scientific principles as well...
:)) but, of course, reading your response, I had to dig a dictionary out...to translate for this ole country boy....:)
Tom
He was referring to Bible believing Christians like me :>)
So as a scientist you just made the mistake of assuming something. But I'm not surprised.
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. IMO, a very good example of this is Gauss's realization that, not only isn't it self evident that space is Equclidean, but that it is an empirical question - he actually attempted to measure spatial curvature.
I don't think science today can be considered philosophical in any significant way. Methodological naturalism and empiricism are philosophical only in the waekest sense, in the same way that an engineer's philosophy is to adopt what works.
It is hardly hysterical. These decisions are made by the ACLU. Perhaps they are hysterical but I'm certainly not.
Yes, of course. And listing a few you believe were atheists that did horrible things invalidates atheism?
Which came first, their desire to be nasty or their atheism. Was their atheism the cause of their actions or are the two coincidental?
Why didn't you list the atheists that contribute to the world's welfare on a daily basis?
Correct.
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.