PBS Telling Teachers to Violate First Amendment, Group Says

CNSN News ^ | November 13, 2007 | Randy Hall

[yoe]

A packet for educators issued by the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) in conjunction with the NOVA program "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" encourages teaching practices that are probably unconstitutional, a conservative organization stated on Tuesday.

"The NOVA/PBS teaching guide encourages the injection of religion into classroom teaching about evolution in a way that likely would violate current Supreme Court precedents about the First Amendment's Establishment Clause," said John West, vice president for public policy and legal affairs at the Discovery Institute, in a news release.

The 22-page document is a companion piece to the two-hour NOVA docudrama, "Judgment Day," airing on most network affiliates Tuesday night. The film is about a trial concerning intelligent design that took place in Dover, Pa., in 2005.

The guide claims to provide teachers with "easily digestible information to guide and support you in facing challenges to evolution."

In the booklet, teachers are instructed to use such discussion questions as: "Can you accept evolution and still believe in religion?" The answer to that query is provided as: "Yes. The common view that evolution is inherently antireligious is simply false."

"This statement is simplistic and not neutral among different religions, and in that sense arguably inconsistent with Supreme Court teachings concerning neutrality," said attorney Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs at the institute.

"The Supreme Court ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas that the government must maintain 'neutrality between religion and religion,'" said Randal Wenger, a Pennsylvania attorney who filed amicus briefs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover School District case.

"Because the briefing packet only promotes religious viewpoints that are friendly towards evolution, this is not neutral, and PBS is encouraging teachers to violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause," Wenger added.

In its news release, the Discovery Institute indicates that it has enlisted more than a dozen attorneys and legal scholars, including Wenger, to review the PBS teaching guide with an eye to its constitutionality.

"The PBS materials, in suggesting that students need not be concerned that evolution violates their religion, ironically equip public school teachers to violate our current conception of the First Amendment by explicitly teaching students concerning matters of religious belief," Wenger said.

"The irony is that discussing intelligent design would not teach any student about any religious belief - the PBS materials, on the other hand, will," he said.

Luskin noted that the teaching guide also presents false information about the theory of intelligent design.

"The teaching guide is also riddled with factual errors that misrepresent both the standard definition of intelligent design and the beliefs of those scientists and scholars who support the theory," the attorney added.

As a result, the institute is providing its own guide for educators, "The Theory of Intelligent Design," which will help teachers better understand the debate between Darwinian evolution and intelligent design.

Cybercast News Service previously reported that in December 2004, parents in Dover filed the first-ever challenge to intelligent design being taught in public schools, claiming it violated their religious liberty by promoting particular religious beliefs to their children under the guise of science education.

Just over a year later, U.S. District Judge John Jones III ruled that the school system may not include intelligent design in its science curriculum because intelligent design is not a scientific concept.

Telephone calls and e-mails seeking a response from the Public Broadcasting System were not returned by press time. However, on the PBS Web site, the program is described as capturing "the turmoil that tore apart the community of Dover, Pa., in one of the latest battles over teaching evolution in public schools."

"Featuring trial reenactments based on court transcripts and interviews with key participants - including expert scientists and Dover parents, teachers and town officials - 'Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial' follows the celebrated federal case of Kitzmiller v. Dover School District," the site states.

"In 2004, the Dover school board ordered science teachers to read a statement to high school biology students suggesting that there is an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution called intelligent design - the idea that life is too complex to have evolved naturally and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent agent," the Web site says.

"The teachers refused to comply," it adds.

"'Judgment Day' captures on film a landmark court case with a powerful scientific message at its core," said Paula Apsell, NOVA's senior executive producer. "Evolution is one of the most essential, yet - for many people - least understood of all scientific theories, the foundation of biological science."

"We felt it was important for NOVA to do this program to heighten the public understanding of what constitutes science and what does not and, therefore, what is acceptable for inclusion in the science curriculum in our public schools," Apsell said.

Nevertheless, Discovery Institute attorney Casey Luskin disagreed that the program is just about science.

"PBS gives a false definition of intelligent design that is a complete straw man argument," Luskin said. "Scientists who support intelligent design seek evidence of design in nature, and argue that such evidence points to intelligent design, based on our historical knowledge of cause and effect."

"So intelligent design theory is not an argument based on what we don't know, but rather an argument about what we do know," he said.

[bigcat32]

“...................The fossil record indicates that 50 million years ago our ancestors had diverged from lampreys and other jawless fish................”

You have a fantastic imagination. Macro-Evolution is an adult fantasy and there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that species can interbreed or that one specie can generate another specie. The fossil record is a very weak argument for macro-evolution. Snap out of the fairy tale. I’m very curious for an answer to these questions from someone who can enlighten me:
1. What does evolution predict next?

2. Where is man headed besides mass extinction?

Man is a hopeless creature who’s destiny is to wipe themselves out. Ego, jealousy, greed, power, control. Did those features come from the lamprey 50 million years ago? Man is unlike any creature in the history of this universe.

[dschapin]

All this hype about the wedge document is ridiculous. We all have many different motivations for the things that we do. Many evolutionists have made public statement where they talk about how evolution is important for them because it allows them to be intellectually fullfilled atheists. The fact that many people at Discovery Institute may be Christians does not take away from the fact that they make very compelling scientiffic arguments against evolution in favor of design. If evolution is true why does the scientiffic establishment have to a keep a constant scientiffic inquisition going in order to protect people from ideas like intelligent design and creationism. It wouldn’t by any chance have anything to do with protecting people from the truth now would it.

[dschapin]

God is by definition beyond the bounds of science so he does not require a creator. Evolution by contrast claims that everything we see came about naturally - so it is forced to try and explain the existance of everything without breaking the laws of science and this cannot be done.

[allmendream]

No proof that species can interbreed? Ever hear of a Lyger or a Tigon? Speciation has been observed numerous times in the lab and in nature. Science doesn’t deal in proof it deals with evidence, and the evidence of the evolution of the genome is that we share a common ancestry with related species, which makes sense because the fossil record that you say is a weak argument indicates that humans were not around for the majority of time on the earth, like when there were 60’ tall carnivores.

[Aloysius88]

That’s what I really love about these threads, a smarmy ad hominem attack.

[bigcat32]

You didn’t take a stab at my questions.

[allmendream]

What does evolution predict next for the human species? Nothing much. We are not under stringent selection for any particular trait. Much like in punctuated equilibrium we will exist in this state likely up until the moment of our extinction, if it ever occurs.

Why, where do you think the human species is headed?

[highball]

All this hype about the wedge document is ridiculous. We all have many different motivations for the things that we do.

You are incorrect. The wedge document is important because it proves two things:

1. ID was developed to fit a pre-existing political ideology first and foremost; and
2. the DI lied about its methodology and intentions.

No small thing there, getting caught in an outright lie.

The fact that many people at Discovery Institute may be Christians does not take away from the fact that they make very compelling scientiffic arguments against evolution in favor of design.

Sigh.

1. There are no compelling scientific arguments against evolution. Behe himself admitted that on the stand (amazing what people will say when they're actually under oath); and
2. ID presumes that Darwinian evolution is 100% correct. All it does is add an external force guiding evolution. ID recognizes the common ancestor, the old Earth, and all the rest.
3. The vast majority of people who recognize evolution are themselves Christians. It is not an either/or.

[allmendream]

Still going with “absolutely no proof whatsoever that species can interbreed”? I find it amazing that someone who calls themselves “bigcat” doesn’t know about the biggest of the big cats. It is a Lyger, a cat with a Lion father and a Tiger mother. It is much bigger than a Tigon which has a Tiger father and a Lion mother.

I’d say a Lyger is living proof that species can interbreed. Does everything you say reflect this same amount of knowledge and research?

[bigcat32]

True, my dad was a tiger and my mom was a lion but to extrapolate that into thinking man “evolved” from inorganic material is quite a “leap”. In fact, it’s amusing. I’d argue that breeding within the cat family does not constitute a reason to validate your definition of evolution or discredit my original claim. Perhaps we have different definitions for “specie”.

I’m still waiting for you to take a stab at the questions I posed to you earlier in this discussion.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for the pings to this engaging sidebar!

Of a truth, Darwin never asked or answered the question “what is life v non-life/death in nature.” He took life as a "given" and proceeded to explain speciation. I suspect his intent was to avoid confrontations with theologians in his era. Nevertheless, his correspondence speaks of that warm, little pond.

And in practice, in publicly funded schools, children hear nothing but God-less explanations for phenomenon observed in nature. Moreover, it is a string of horrific Supreme Court decisions that has made “God” and “Jesus” banished words not to be spoken in publicly funded domains here in the United States.

Somewhere along the way, the high court has reinterpreted "freedom of religion" to mean "freedom from religion."

Worse still, there has been an agreement among the science disciplines except for Physics (and of course Mathematics which is not a science) – to comply with “methodological naturalism.” This sounds innocent enough – the idea being that science only addresses phenomena which are knowable and predictable. Or to put it another way, God cannot be observed with a telescope or microscope and miracles cannot be reproduced in laboratory experiments.

But the atheist community – and most notably some influential atheist scientists who do theology under the color of science (Dawkins, Pinker, Singer, Lewontin et al) – seize upon the success of science as “proof” that miracles do not happen and God does not exist.

But the ideological pendulum swings, so enter the Intelligent Design movement whose original goal was to rid science of “methodological naturalism.” Or to put it another way, all science disciplines should follow the lead of Physics and Math – go where the evidence leads, disclose the axioms and postulates, emphasize the theory, accept the absence of evidence as evidence of absence, etc.

Again, the pendulum swings and the reaction from the science community is that Intelligent Design is theology under the color of science. I find this an amusing pot-kettle-black, btw.

And once again the courts end up being the arbiter and upholding decisions which move the entire education process further towards anti-God indoctrination.

But a curious thing has happened on the way to the education system becoming the missionary of atheism on the public dole, empowered by the judiciary – the parents have started pulling their kids out. Evidently not so much because of the atheism but the teaching of politics and immorality (gay activism) – pressuring the children with “don’t tell your parents, but…”

And another strange turn of events is the 8^th Court of Appeals finding that atheism is indeed a religion, Kaufman v. McCaughtry (2005).

Time will tell as the pendulum keeps swinging – perhaps the Supreme Court will have to address the issue once again because if religion cannot be discussed in publicly funded institutions then neither can atheism if it is also a religion, or perhaps the precedents will be laid aside.

Or perhaps they will do nothing in which case I perceive a continued “falling away” in fulfillment of a certain prophesy in 2 Thessalonians 2.

Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and [by] our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way. – 2 Th 2:1-7

Maranatha, Jesus!!!

[highball]

But the ideological pendulum swings, so enter the Intelligent Design movement whose original goal was to rid science of “methodological naturalism.” Or to put it another way, all science disciplines should follow the lead of Physics and Math – go where the evidence leads, disclose the axioms and postulates, emphasize the theory, accept the absence of evidence as evidence of absence, etc.

Incorrect, I'm afraid.

"Intelligent Design" is a prime example of them not following the evidence. The poorly-named Discovery Institute started with a political agenda and worked from there.

I'm surprised at how many people who dislike the notion of evolution go on to support ID, which admits that the basic premise of Darwinian evolution is firmly established and incontrovertible.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

"Intelligent Design" is a prime example of them not following the evidence. The poorly-named Discovery Institute started with a political agenda and worked from there.

Pot-kettle-black

From The Physics of Symbols: Bridging the Epistemic Cut

Many biologists consider physical laws, artificial life, robotics, and even theoretical biology as largely irrelevant for their research. In the 1970s, a prominent molecular geneticist asked me, "Why do we need theory when we have all the facts?" At the time I dismissed the question as silly, as most physicists would. However, it is not as silly as the converse question, Why do we need facts when we have all the theories? These are actually interesting philosophical questions that show why trying to relate biology to physics is seldom of interest to biologists, even though it is of great interest to physicists. Questioning the importance of theory sounds eccentric to physicists for whom general theories is what physics is all about. Consequently, physicists, like the skeptics I mentioned above, are concerned when they learn facts of life that their theories do not appear capable of addressing. On the other hand, biologists, when they have the facts, need not worry about physical theories that neither address nor alter their facts. Ernst Mayr (1997) believes this difference is severe enough to separate physical and biological models: "Yes, biology is, like physics and chemistry, a science. But biology is not a science like physics and chemistry; it is rather an autonomous science on a par with the equally autonomous physical sciences."

There are fundamental reasons why physics and biology require different levels of models, the most obvious one is that physical theory is described by rate-dependent dynamical laws that have no memory, while evolution depends, at least to some degree, on control of dynamics by rate-independent memory structures. A less obvious reason is that Pearson's "corpuscles" are now described by quantum theory while biological subjects require classical description in so far as they function as observers. This fact remains a fundamental problem for interpreting quantum measurement, and as I mention below, this may still turn out to be essential in distinguishing real life from macroscopic classical simulacra. I agree with Mayr that physics and biology require different models, but I do not agree that they are autonomous models. Physical systems require many levels of models, some formally irreducible to one another, but we must still understand how the levels are related. Evolution also produces hierarchies of organization from cells to societies, each level requiring different models, but the higher levels of the hierarchy must have emerged from lower levels. Life must have emerged from the physical world. This emergence must be understood if our knowledge is not to degenerate (more than it has already) into a collection of disjoint specialized disciplines.

[highball]

That in no way defends the actions of the Discovery Institute, nor does it excuse their lies.

But thank you for trying.

[MHGinTN]

Against my better judgment, I'm going to chime in here.

As the Dover School Board Trial showed clearly, the people from the DI were seeking to promote Creationism under the guise of Intelligent Design. Of course they were off base in being dishonest in this stealth effort and were caught in their deceits. Their problem is where they focus the notion of Design! Having a 'perspective' which reaches from prior to 'big bang' to our future, God the Creator Almighty programmed into His Creation the information necessary to achieve His creative goals. This programming causes the inherent information in the program to at times appear to be random in nature, but it is in fact designed to reach particular goals. In the Genesis account, the Hebrew term 'barah' is used only three times, and each time it points to an event in spacetime which causes something never seen before in any variation to come into existence. If one wishes to 'see' the programming of the Creation done by the Creator, seek out the three uses of 'barah' in the Creation. As one would suspect, the fossil record even substantiates two of the 'barah' to the extent which one applies the evidence correctly. [I'll get back up on the proch now ... ]

[allmendream]

If your dad was a Tiger and your mom was a Lion you would be a Tigon, and a bit of a ‘smallcat32’. Do you know why a Tigon is smaller than a Lyger which has a Lion dad and a Tiger mom? Did you know that one can predict the outcome based upon the idea of evolution of the ‘selfish gene’ and the fact that a Lion is a more polyanderous species than a Tiger.

You said there was no evidence that interbreeding between species was possible. I say that it is possible, it has been done, and there is living proof. Your original claim was unambiguously incorrect. I use the Scientific definition of species, a population of interbreeding individuals, are you saying Tigers and Lions are the same species? They have not been the same species for a very long time and do not interbreed in the wild.

I answered your question. If you feel that I didn’t then please repeat it with an explanation why you found my answer insufficient.

[bigcat32]

Wasn’t punctuated equilibrium made up because the fossil record wasn’t fitting in with preconceived ideas of evolution? That’s part of the fun, watching evolutionists scramble when their theories are discredited with facts. It seems to happen a lot. However, creation is the ultimate in punctuated equilibrium so I give credit to the evolutionist for getting closer to reality.

[highball]

I use the Scientific definition of species

Well, see, that was your problem. You insist on words actually meaning things, and for Intelligent Design to make sense the Discovery Institute must redefine "is."

But don't take my word for it. Michael Behe, one of the DI's own foremost proponents of ID, admitted under oath that for ID to be considered a scientific theory the term must be stretched to include such things as astrology.

You can usually tell who's on the right side of an argument when one needs to redefine terms. No less so in this case.

[allmendream]

Yes, and Lions and Tigers are the same species. Genetical richness can be quantified but not defined. Complexity can be measured but not defined and a prokaryote and a eukaryote are the same basic level of complexity. Science includes Astrology if it includes I.D.. Hey! Why are you Science guys not accepting of I.D.? Sheesh!

[bigcat32]

Two felids have sex and out pops.......another felid!!!! Yes, now I’m a believer.