Posted on 02/18/2006 1:56:49 AM PST by gobucks
MADISON, Wis. -- Two Democratic lawmakers introduced a bill to ban public schools from teaching "intelligent design" as science, saying "pseudo-science" should have no place in the classroom.
The proposal is the first of its kind in the country, the National Conference of State Legislatures said.
The measure would require science curriculums to describe only natural processes and follow definitions from the National Academy of Sciences.
Its sponsor, Rep. Terese Berceau, acknowledged the measure faces an uphill fight in a legislature where Republicans control both houses.
Berceau said science education is under attack across the country as proponents of intelligent design promote alternatives to Darwinian evolution. Intelligent design holds that details in nature are so complex they are best explained as products of a designer, not only unguided natural selection of mutations as with Darwin.
Critics say intelligent design is thinly disguised religion that lacks any basis in science. In December, a federal judge in Pennsylvania outlawed a school district's policy of reading a statement to classes citing intelligent design options.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
The item below is not an isolated case. This is the strategy:
First, opponents get ID banned from being taught as a science.
Then they get it banned from being taught by social studies teachers who do not have enought "science" background.
Then they get it banned from being taught at all, even as an elective, because of "separation of church and state"
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:C4VJRoQIz8IJ:www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/01/17/evolution.debate.ap/index.html+social+studies+teacher+intelligent+design&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
CALIIFRONIA DISTRICT TO STOP TEACHING 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN'
Tuesday, January 17, 2006; Posted: 2:38 p.m. EST (19:38 GMT)
Frazier Mountain High School will stop teaching "Philosophy of Design." RELATED
• El Tejon Unified School District
FRESNO, California (AP) -- Under legal pressure, a rural school district agreed Tuesday to stop offering high school students an elective philosophy course on "intelligent design," an advocacy group said.
A group of parents had sued the El Tejon school district in federal court 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 notion that life is so complex it must have been created by some kind of higher intelligence.
Ayesha N. Khan, legal director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which represented the parents, said Frazier Mountain High agreed to drop the class.
"This sends a strong signal to school districts across the country that they cannot promote creationism or intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, whether they do so in a science class or a humanities class," Khan said.
District officials did not immediately return calls for comment.
The settlement was announced just before a federal judge was scheduled to hold a hearing on whether to halt the class midway through the monthlong winter term.
In a landmark lawsuit, Americans United successfully blocked the Dover, Pennsylvania, school system last month from teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in high school biology classes. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is religion masquerading as science.
However, some activists contended that Jones' ruling opened the door to teaching intelligent design in philosophy or religion classes.
El Tejon Superintendent John Wight said the subject was proper for a philosophy class. But Americans United argued the course relied almost exclusively on videos that presented religious theories as scientific ones.
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 taught "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 over intelligent design are being fought in Georgia and Kansas.
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:C4VJRoQIz8IJ:www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/01/17/evolution.debate.ap/index.html+social+studies+teacher+intelligent+design&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
Dude, that's BS.
No, it's a description of the exchange.
I asked him directly if he misrepresented the ages of the skins vis-a-vis the bones, and he said no, he just referred to a misrepresentation made by someone else.
Where and when was this?
To date, whenever it has been brought up, Havoc has failed to even admit that Hovind's claim was in error, unless I've managed to miss a critical post. As recently as two months ago (the original exchange was over a year ago), he blustered and tried to change the subject when reminded of the falsehood, without admitting error on his or Hovind's part.
I hope you're not chasing down anyone who commits a faux paux and never letting them forget it.
No, I'm pointing out when an anti-evolutionist is unable to admit even the most obvious of his own errors, or the errors of another anti-evolutionist, and how he *repeats* the false claim even after it has been demonstrated to him that it is false.
That's not science either!!!!
I didn't say it was. It was an examination of someone's abysmal inability to be accurate or honest.
Wrong.
Scripture is God's Word revealed to man, but religion is not a revelation, rather it is a system of worship. By excluding God or faith in Him from evolutionary theory or the classroom, the state is establishing a religion.
Wrong again.
Of course the really fun thing about this bill is that it would also ban the teaching of string theory--that damned massless scalar field it predicts just isn't observed in nature. Only teach 'natural processes'.
"If you have any accusations to make towards any specific Freepers, now would be a good time to make them. If you don't, you should retract your cowardly and slanderous implication. Have you enough honor?"
Tell me you are kidding. Please. In these days of the Verona translations from the KGB files, please tell me that you believe a few, perhaps a bunch of False Flag Freepers have free reign here.
I encourage you to study epistemology.
Not to mention imaginary numbers,...the nerve of the idea...;^)
How can our kids compete with foreign engineers whose math and science curriculums aren't watered down by myth and superstition ?
BUMP
Amused Placemarker
You are grossly misrepresenting what occurred in the El Tejon case. The presentation was so overtly religious, that even the Discovery Institute (the foremost "Intelligent Design" organization) had its lawyer send the school a letter asking them to in effect "cease and desist" from calling its course "intelligent design":
"We support efforts to teach different scientific views on the subject of origins in an objective and pedagogically appropriate manner, which allows students to study the strengths and weaknesses of various views. But if this course is intended to present purely scientific views on intelligent design, the content needs to be reformulated and creationist material should be removed. Otherwise, change the title of the course so it does not misrepresent the theory of intelligent design. A final acceptable remedy is to simply cancel the course."
Oh, I have. That's how I know I'm on firm ground when I tell you you're speaking nonsense.
Don't go down their rabbit holes starbase. It's one of their tactics.
lol
Tell me you are kidding. Please.
I am not kidding.
In these days of the Verona translations from the KGB files, please tell me that you believe a few, perhaps a bunch of False Flag Freepers have free reign here.
Your reference to translations and the KGB mean nothing to me, perhaps they relate to something on a thread I haven't visited, but my point is that if you have specific accusations to make against specific Freepers, you should do so outright, instead of making vague, broad implications which sound as if you are accusing people on this thread of something without having the guts to say it outright, or as if you just wanted to leave a broad slur in the hopes of tarring as many targets as possible without having to actually back it up.
So again I say, if you have specific accusations against specific Freepers, make them, and if you don't, you might want to think about retracting your broad slur if you didn't mean for it to reflect on present company. Or just fail to do so and damage your own honor if you wish.
okay, but they all end up in some cube thing, lol.
Yes, yes, pay no attention to the scientific evidence, you might pollute your mind with actual knowledge, and we know where *that* leads...
Revisit your notes regarding faith, psychological certainty, and discernment between the soul and spirit from Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.
If one only studies from post enlightenment epistimology, don't be surprised if one never fully comprehends the meaning of righteous justified faith, but confuses knowledge with rational justification in unrighteous arrogance.
lol. I won't answer, it's dangerous for my FR health.
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.