Posted on 06/17/2006 12:19:17 PM PDT by DeweyCA
Just to let every other little town know what they will face if they dare to take a stand for something.
Yeah, but what the board was "taking a stand" for was perjury.
I happen to believe that there should be deterrents for such things, to discourage others from thinking that it's okay to lie under oath. Maybe I'm old-fashioned that way.
If the board had followed its attorney's advice in the first place there would have been no suit.
Yes, lying on the stand is a crime, but that's not what the lawsuit was all about. If the ACLU wasn't looking to use the power of the judiciary to force on unwilling people their ideals and agenda, then there wouldn't have been a lawsuit in the first place.
How is what's taught in school *Constitutional* to begin with? There's nothing in the Constitution that determines course curriculum. As a matter of fact, what is Constitutional about the public school system? Forcing someone's kids to go somewhere to be educated (now indoctrinated)or the better part of the day? Forced paying of taxes to support a corrupt, generally ineffective institution, with the threat of legal penalties if the taxpayers don't comply? Talk about *taxation without representation*.
If the ACLU wasn't looking to use the power of the judiciary to force on unwilling people their ideals and agenda, then there wouldn't have been a lawsuit in the first place.
Sorry, mom. You've got it backwards.
The Thomas More Law Center was the one looking to force its ideology.
They shopped around, looking for a school board willing to implement a curriculum guaranteed to provoke a court challenge. Then, when they got what they wanted, they specifically asked the judge to rule on their ideology, not dreaming that a conservative judge would put politics aside and actually follow the law.
Your beef oughtn't be with the ACLU (strange as that sounds!). Like the broken clock, they were right on this one.
Your beef really ought to be with the ones "looking to use the power of the judiciary to force on unwilling people their ideals and agenda" - the Thomas More Law Center.
It stated: “Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s Theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of the life will not be taught.” The policy also required school administrators to read to students a statement mentioning problems with Darwin's theory and refers students to school library textbooks discussing the theory of intelligent design.
So what's so un-Constitutional about that statement? Are kids not to be taught that there are problems with TOE or are they to be taught that there are none? Are schools teaching kids to blindly accept anything that comes down the pike without thinking for themselves? Teaching of creation along with evolution doesn't seem to have hurt the education of all the kids in private Christian schools or all the homeschoolers who teach it.
Yo qiero Taqiyya Bell...
I know, brother. I know.
Pathetic, isn't it?
You're avoiding the point, mom. It was Thomas More that tried to use the courts.
The taxpayers spoke - they don't want these nuts in power. They threw the board out as soon as they had the chance. It wasn't about what the taxpayers want, it was about a small minority trying to sneak their religion into the schools, and them being willing to lie to do it.
There is no emerging scientific theory of intelligent design. If there was, they could've shown some evidence at trial.
so have all scientists, and, if I may say so, all decent people.
What's wrong with bringing back what the people who are sending THEIR kids to schools that THEIR tax dollars are paying for?
Quite a bit. The law says that science has to be taught. The average voter is unlikely to know science from pseudoscience. Hence, the schools need to consult with scientists to determinethe curriculum.
Creation obviously did not have a deleterious effect on the progress of all science that was performed before ToE was introduced
Keep the timeline in mind. ToE was accepted by biologists no later than the 1880s, and was part of the college curriculum then. It then filtered down into the secondary school curriculum. Tennessee and Scopes were an attempt, decades later, to stop something that had already happened. ToE has been the curriculum since then. So really, except for the transitional period in the late 1800s - early 1900s, creationism has not bee taught since Darwin's theory was accepted by biolgists.
Teaching of creation along with evolution doesn't seem to have hurt the education of all the kids in private Christian schools or all the homeschoolers who teach it.
Two points: 1) If the along with evo is forgotten, it does make getting into college harder. 2) Most Christian schools are Catholic, and they teach ToE.
...all decent people? All? How do you know there aren't decent people who who don't want evolution forced on their kids in public schools? And those who don't want evolution forced on the kids aren't decent people?
Most Christian schools are Catholic, and they teach ToE.
*Christian* schools are not necessarily *Catholic* schools. I've never heard the terms used interchangably and I've lived in two heavily Catholic areas.
The curriculum we used for homeschooling was Abeka, which is widely used by many non-Catholic Christian schools and many homeschoolers, and it does teach evolution. When my daughter took a NYS regents Bio exam, she got an 88% on the evolution section of the exam. Christian schools that use Abeka are teaching both and apparently doing a good enough job to pass a NY regents exam. So much for how the teaching of creation is hurting a child's science education.
If the along with evo is forgotten, it does make getting into college harder.
????
The average voter is unlikely to know science from pseudoscience. Hence, the schools need to consult with scientists to determinethe curriculum.
Yes, it gets back to the thinking that the ignorant masses need someone who *knows better* than them what is best for them, to make decisions for them, all for their own good of course, because they are incapable of knowing that, too.
No, they're not. Deliberately hiding science from children is not a decent act. If they're "teaching" creationism and evo, it's possible to do that in a responsible manner, I guess, but not if it involves lying about the science or the status of evo within science; for example "tteaching the conroversy", when in fact there is no scientific controversy, is lying.
*Christian* schools are not necessarily *Catholic* schools...
Parochial schools are the largest class of Christian schools. I don't know anything about Abeka.
If the along with evo is forgotten, it does make getting into college harder.
????
Oops, "along with evo" should have been quoted.
Yes, it gets back to the thinking that the ignorant masses need someone who *knows better* than them what is best for them, to make decisions for them, all for their own good of course, because they are incapable of knowing that, too.
That's not what I said. What I said was that if you want a decent curriculum on any subject, you consult experts on that subject. Evo is not an exception. I didn't say that the masses can't learn science, just that most of them haven't. Thus, the need for experts.
What I said was that if you want a decent curriculum on any subject, you consult experts on that subject. Evo is not an exception. I didn't say that the masses can't learn science, just that most of them haven't. Thus, the need for experts.
I've long suspected that some of the objection to the ToE stems from an anti-elitism feeling. "What makes them so good, to know so much?"
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.