Posted on 12/15/2004 12:12:42 PM PST by truthfinder9
ACLU, church-state group plan lawsuit over 'intelligent design' mandate
The Associated Press 12/13/2004, 12:18 p.m. ET
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — The state American Civil Liberties Union plans to file a federal lawsuit Tuesday against a school district that is requiring students to learn about alternatives to the theory of evolution.
The ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have scheduled a Tuesday afternoon news conference to discuss the lawsuit against the Dover Area School District, which will be filed in U.S. District Court in Harrisburg, ACLU spokesman Paul Silva said Monday.
Neither Silva nor Joe Conn, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, would comment on the specifics of the complaint.
The Dover school board voted 6-3 on Oct. 18 to mandate the teaching of "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by some higher power. It is believed to be the first school district in the nation to adopt such a policy.
School administrators have declined to comment on the mandate, which applies to ninth-grade biology classes at Dover High School.
Last month, the district issued a statement saying that state academic standards require the teaching of evolution, which holds that Earth is billions of years old and that life forms developed over millions of years. The statement also says Charles Darwin's theory "is still being tested as new evidence is discovered," and that intelligent design "is an explanation of the origins of life that differs from Darwin's view."
In reviewing the matter, the ACLU has said intelligent design is a more secular form of creationism, a Biblical-based view that credits the origin of species to God, and may violate the constitutional separation of church and state.
For more, see:
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php http://sciencewatch.blogspot.com/
This is the third time this article has been posted in two days.
If they're anti-science and anti-religion, what are they pro for?
They are Pro-ACLU.
I would probably vote against creationism being taught in school but I really don't see how its ACLU's business. Also I doubt if they are experts in this field.
Why don't they just teach all theories, and let the kids decide which to believe...after all, it's not like anyone really knows how it all started.
Court costs assessed.
"Why don't they just teach all theories, and let the kids decide which to believe...after all, it's not like anyone really knows how it all started."
They do teach all the plausible theories, which is only evolution. If people want ID or creationism 1.0 taught in religion class, fine. But this is science class. Since ID is not considered science by anyone in the scientific community, it should not be taught in science class.
No matter how many people believe something, does not change whether it qualifies as science or not. Science is not a democracy.
Do you know how many thousands of creation myths there are in the world? You want the schools to teach them all? There'd be no time for anything else.
That should read, "ANTI-science, ANTI-religion bigots at ACLU sue school filled with transparent, religious ignoramuses."
| Atheism is a religion... there is no way to keep religion out of schools. Why aren't christians playing the same game as ACLU by sueing schools at every mention of anything which refers to ANY religion in ANY way?... because schools would then not be able to teach anything. (except maybe reading and math) If christians cannot beat the ACLU at their own game, it's time to start boycotting public schools alltogether. |
I guess the key here is who determines what is a 'plausible' theory. Perhaps they should have 2 seperate classes, the scientific theory and the religious theories...make them both mandatory, and then let the kids decide which they believe.
Well then, since we agree that they are all myths, maybe they should just present what is available via a reading list or something, and go on to other subjects. Why is it necessary to teach something that no one can prove anyway? Let the science classes incorporate their theory into the science curriculums.
Saying atheism is a religion is like saying bare feet are a type of shoe.
If you expand the definition of religion so that it is not dependent on a dogma or belief in the supernatural, then you include far more than atheism. For instance, manchester united fans, and the NRA would also qualify as religions.
I don't care what gets taught in religion class. You can make religion class mandatory, as long as it is a world religion class that talks about many of the popular creation myths, not just christianity.
What I vehemently oppose, is anything unscientific being taught in science class, which confuses and dilutes the factual basis of science.
Even the catholic church, the most antiquated and progressively resistant institution in the west, accepts evolution as fact. If that's not a good reason to reconcile your beliefs with evolution, nothing is.
Personally, I can't see where any of it really matters, no one is going to be able to prove any of it. You are right though, science should be left to science.
"Why is it necessary to teach something that no one can prove anyway?"
Are you questioning the theory of evolution? Argh... In the scientific community there has been no debate over evolution's validity for 100 years. Evolution is NOT an indulgent past-time of scientists, it is a complicated theory supported by many disciplines spread across many fields from biology to geology.
If you want to believe evolution, micro OR macro, is a lie, fine. But you have to accept that you are saying every leading scientist in the world who study the natural world for a living are wrong. Go do some searches on peer reviewed journals and count how many papers you find that question evolution. I can save you some time, it's none.
Maybe evolution is wrong, but until SCIENCE proves it's wrong, or comes up with a better theory, evolution is THE scientific theory to explain the diversity of life. As such, science class need only teach ONE theory.
Christians saying evolution is a lie is exactly the same thing as scientists saying the bible says god wears yellow polka-dot pyjamas, depite them never having read the bible.
I have no idea whether evolution or any other theory is right or wrong.
To say stuff like "there has been no debate over evolution's validity for 100 years" is to be completely ignorant of science. There was much debate during Darwin's time, and there is much debate now. And most of it hasn't been poisted by religious fanactics. Just like young-earth creationists, some evolutionists live in a vibrant fantasy land.
| Bare feet and shoes are tangible things... physical... provable in terms of existence. Both atheism and theism of any sort relies upon faith in a theory or belief concerning those things which cannot be proven, particularly in areas concerning God and the origins of man's existence. If man were omnicient, then religion would not exist. Those who claim not to be religious simply ignore their own ignorance. |
| Bare feet and shoes are tangible things... physical... provable in terms of existence. Both atheism and theism of any sort relies upon faith in a theory or belief concerning those things which cannot be proven, particularly in areas concerning God and the origins of man's existence. If man were omnicient, then religion would not exist. Those who claim not to be religious simply ignore their own ignorance. |
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.