Posted on 01/06/2005 7:39:47 AM PST by PatrickHenry
A Pennsylvania school district Wednesday rejected charges that plans to include references to an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution in high school biology classes would be illegal.
The Dover Area School District near Harrisburg is the first in the United States to introduce "Intelligent Design," a theory that the natural world is so complex it must have been made by an intelligent being, rather than occurring by chance, as held by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. ["By chance" isn't quite accurate, but that's what the reporter wrote.]
The district was sued by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State on December 14 over plans to teach the theory starting next week. The lawsuit is the first to challenge the teaching of Intelligent Design, which the groups say violates the Constitutional separation of church and state.
A Pennsylvania school district Wednesday rejected charges that plans to include references to an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution in high school biology classes would be illegal.
The Dover Area School District near Harrisburg is the first in the United States to introduce "Intelligent Design," a theory that the natural world is so complex it must have been made by an intelligent being, rather than occurring by chance, as held by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
The district was sued by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State on December 14 over plans to teach the theory starting next week. The lawsuit is the first to challenge the teaching of Intelligent Design, which the groups say violates the Constitutional separation of church and state.
The civil rights groups argued that "Intelligent Design" is a thinly veiled version of creationism -- the belief that the earth was made by God. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1980s that teaching creationism in public schools would violate the constitutional separation of church and state. [The case to which the article refers is probably this one: EDWARDS v. AGUILLARD.]
The school district said in Wednesday's court filing that its "biology curriculum policy does not advance religion."
Instead, it informs "students about the existing scientific controversy surrounding Darwin's Theory of Evolution." [Note: virtually all scientists in the field of biology deny that there is any scientific controversy involved.]
Christian conservatives, who played an important role in the re-election of President Bush, have been pressing for decades for creationism to be taught in schools. [Note: There are major political implications here if creationism (or ID) becomes Republican policy.]
Lawyers for the school board said that neither creationism nor "Intelligent Design" will be taught to students, and that no religious beliefs will be taught.
Intelligent Design does not presuppose any supernatural being, and is not creationism, the school district said in its response, saying the school district will also continue to teach evolution.
On January 13, teachers will be required to read a statement saying that Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view, and that if students want to read more about it, they can read a book called "Of Pandas and People" which they can find in the school library.
Witold Walczak, legal director of the ACLU in Pennsylvania, said the plaintiffs will not seek an order to stop the policy being implemented next week and hope the case will go to trial in the coming months.
"This is the first legal challenge to Intelligent Design, and that alone makes it important," Walczak said. "If we lose, we really fear that you will see school districts all across the country teaching Intelligent Design."
This must be fought tooth and nail within the party. Conservatism cannot be hijacked for a war against reality.
Amen. Especially with regard to teaching it in schools.
"Why must one suppose the designer is more intelligent than the designed objects?"
I think the whole concept is to help people sleep better at night.
What this does is raise ID to the level of a theory in the minds of those students. ID should not be pushed as an alternative in science class.
Exactly. These ID folks have not even tested some sound hypotheses yet, and they are calling this stuff a theory. From this "theory" they generate hypotheses that cannot be falsified. They call this science. I don't.
Intelligent design is the warm milk of the masses?
Right. Individuals may conclude that but that conclusion doesn't need to taught. I think the scope is on scientific theories to explain how the world was created, not who created the creator.
Or more specifically, how things work.
From a purely scientific point of view, Intelligent Design postulates someone designed our universe and had a guiding hand in its development. But it fails one particular test. What is the origin of the designer? From a purely logical point of view, if Intelligent Design is not an extension of creationism, this question must be asked from a scientific perspective. What created the creator? How did this happen? What evidence is there for this? The Intelligent Designer must have come into existence somehow through a natural process. Otherwise, Intelligent Design fails the basic principles of science and needs to be taught in theology or philosophy.
On the other hand, the observation of the complexity of life and the universe does bring to mind the anthropic principle, which would make for interesting discussions in a classroom setting.
I haven't seen one example of a substantive refutation of what the school district is proposing to do. The question is- is it true? Hey, you evolution only crowd, have you read Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe, or any other of the SCIENTIFIC criticisms of evolution? Whatever happened to academic freedom?
What the school district is doing is being distorted. They are not teaching Genesis or anything remotely close to it.
Yes, but I doubt if it's appropriate for a high school science class. I don't think there's any high school course that gets into cosmology, unless it's some specialized thing for advanced students. The anthropic principle (it's not a theory) is worth mentioning in the appropriate hour of class time, if there is a cosmology class. But that's not at all what the ID gang have in mind. They're out to discredit evolution, for reasons they're afraid to mention. All in all, it's a sneaky, rather cowardly, back-door attack on biological science.
Are you giving the grades?
Debunked:
Irreducible Complexity Demystified. Major debunking of ID.
The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity," Kenneth R. Miller. Critique of Behe.
AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory. ID isn't science.
proponents of ID are trying to "prove" that life could not have evolved, therefore it must have been designed. So, where did the "advanced aliens" come from? Who designed them, since ID claims that THEY could not have evolved themselves?
ID is just Creationism disguised and claiming otherwise is not believable.
Well, I'm not sure that ID will be considered as valid a theory as evolution... based largely on the fact that they won't actually study it like they do evolution. But I do agree that ID shouldn't be taught in science class. Teaching kids to throw up their hands and say "We can't explain this! It must be the work of God!" is a Very Bad Idea... whatever one's personal views on evolution may be. Once upon a time the rising and setting of the sun, the spread of disease, the abundance of crops, etc. all were all thought to be the work of God(s). Now we know about the earth's orbit in the solar system, viruses and bacteria, and the effect of weather and soil content on plants... We should avoid going through the same process to describe speciation.
That being said... this still is NOT a Constitutional issue. We just shouldn't be trying to change this policy through the courts... that's a liberal's MO... We should change it through our votes.
Really? Any being that could design life I'd consider superior.
And since ID is based on the claim that life would be impossible to evolve, then without any kind of "supreme being" operating outside of the universe we understand, there's no way for the "designer" to have come into being himself.
Somebody has to hand out the grades. Feel free to add your own. It seems clear that the entitity called God can do better, or Heaven is not what it's cracked up to be.
"Has" to?
Feel free to add your own.
I don't "feel" free to do any such thing.
Have YOU read it, or anything that questions evolutionary dogma?
Personally, I haven't read Behe's book, but from multiple sources, I'm generally familiar with his arguments. I'm waiting for him to get something from his book published in a credible, peer-reviewed scientific journal. Then I'll take a serious look.
What do you mean by "evolutionary dogma"?
Thanks for the ping!
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.