Posted on 11/13/2007 1:40:53 PM PST by 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.
Franklin said in his autobiography that he was a thorough Deist, and although he believed in providence, and didn’t refrain from quoting or paraphrasing the Bible when it brought home his point (for his eye is on the sparrow)...
“My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns several points as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of the Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of the sermons which had been preached at Boyle’s Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them. For the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to be much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”
Benjamin Franklin in his Autobiography.
“They are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other.” Thomas Jefferson from the introduction to the Thomas Jefferson Bible (New Testament with the miraculous bits taken out).
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Adams (4/11/1823
The speech requesting prayer, attributed to Franklin is a fabrication, as is much of BB's repertoire.
Madison wrote several letters attempting to set the record straight on Franklin's speech.
No written copy of the speech exists. It was "recalled" nearly 40 years after the fact and printed in a newspaper. It is this newspaper account that Madison refers to as deeply inaccurate.
The really amusing thing is that Franklin, fearing the convention was failing, tried to calm things down by asking for a prayer (Quakers generally pray or meditate in silence), but the various religious factions couldn't agree on the form, and rejected the request.
So in the midst of all this Christianity, we have an object lesson on why we have a First Amendment.
There are false quotes of George Washington saying antisemitic things invented by anti-Semites (he was very welcoming of Jewish people as equal citizens into our Federal Republic). And of course false quotes of Ben Franklin saying Christian things invented by Christians (it is not as if there arn’t enough actual Christian founding fathers to quote, it just happens that most of the ‘Biggies’ were Deists of one stripe or another).
The impulse to ascribe a false quote is a sure sign that you don’t think the facts are on your side, thus they must be invented. But it is a common impulse. There was a story going around that George Washington said some inspirational words before crossing the Delaware River that lightened the spirits of his men and inspired them. There was talk of ‘recapturing’ this magnificent speech; but it was quickly quelled when the person the comment was directed to said that it wasn’t a speech it was a comment to him (a somewhat portly man by the name of Harry). Washingtons rousing words that lightened the spirits of his men and inspired them to victory? “Move your ass Harry, but take care your fat ass doesn’t swamp the boat!”
You weren’t?! Forgive me, but I doubt your sincerity. If you believe the phrase “To promote the Progress of Science and [useful] Arts” accurately conveys a clear understanding of the powers permitted Congress in Article One. Section Eight. Clause Eight; then do not expect me to join you in an attempt to defend your warped concept.
”Is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” a quote mine because I didn’t include the preliminary “a well regulated militia” or the conclusory “shall not be infringed”?”
No. It’s an incomplete thought searching for fulfillment. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” . . . what? “Shall not be granted”? “Shall be allowed only on Tuesday afternoons”? “Shall be subject to the whim of Congress”? “Shall be accessed only at Federal armories”? Oh, wait! I know . . . “shall not be infringed.” Brevity is pointless if it does not convey a comprehensible concept. Your example fails on that count. Worse, it (your example) exactly reverses what you did with the disputed passage, in that you offered a present participle as though it were the operative clause, and excluded entirely the main or independent clause as though it did not exist. Using your present example, it is as though you had offered “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” as an accurate representation of the meaning and import of the Second Amendment, while ignoring “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” There are, of course, people who would like us to believe that is the proper understanding, but we know that it is not.
Walks like a duck; talks like a duck. I think it’s a duck.
”Among the limited enumerated powers of the Federal Government is the mandate to promote the Arts and Sciences, and yes, the specific power granted for this goal is the issuance of exclusive rights for a limited time.”
There you go again. Back at the same Kool-Aid stand, trying to smuggle in the same poisoned concept. The ‘mandate’ in Article One. Section Eight. Clause Eight. is to secure “for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” In truth, it is not a ‘mandate’ at all. It is an enumerated power. This is The Constitution; not some misanthropic Marxist/Socialist manifesto.
”would hope that any true Conservative . . .
I’m a Jeffersonian liberal from before the time the term was transformed into a Liberal excrement deformity (POS) by Democrats, Progressives, Anarchists, and Marxists/Socialists, and I recognize far more than you will find comforting.
” My point was that all the practices of the government of these United States will not align themselves with the religious sensibilities of all of its citizens.:
And drive every vestige of religion (specifically Judeo-Christian) from the public square, denying in the process that the Judeo-Christian tradition ever had any influence on the building of the Union. I could say a good deal more, but you have been blessed with an epistle from betty boop (see msg 179) and I do not wish to burden you and any lurkers with what she has already said so much better than I.
”It is not my fault
Maybe not. Your attempts at quote-mining The Constitution tell me, however, that you are perfectly willing to allow it to be subverted and that you do not propose to do so much as lift a finger in its defense. Jefferson warned that we dare not turn The Constitution into a blank piece of paper lest we lose its protection; a warning largely unheeded. Day by day, we are seeing the results unfold before our eyes.
Jefferson weeps.
Likewise.
We have witnessed people in this forum suggest that raising a child in a Christian home is a form of child abuse, and threaten the removal of the child from its home as a reasonable protective action (if, of course, all opposition to a secular philosophy does not cease immediately). But, not now. That comes later, I think.
Similarly, we have witnessed people in this forum declare that homeschoolers should just flatly, with or without benefit of an entrance exam, be denied entrée to any accredited college or university. But, again later, I think.
Maybe the states regulating of homeschooling entirely out of existence (again, I think later).
But in the meantime, the least we can expect is the usual sensitivity malarkey, the standard Marxist/socialist bromides, maladroit history studies, the ubiquitous PC bravo sierra, and always (ALWAYS) in the name of diversity we must all think alike.
If all else fails, check your nearest university. Coming soon to a public school near you.
Indeed. That, and a very great deal more.
If only people knew what was at stake.
Not lift a finger in its defense? I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and have done so during wartime.
The Constitution says that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, and the remedy for to ensure that there will be a militia is to not infringe upon the peoples rights to keep and bear arms. The Constitution says that Congress should promote the useful Arts and Sciences, and the specific power granted for that purpose is exclusive rights to those writings and discoveries.
Were BB’s quotes accurate this time, or just invented quotes again? ;)
How about Mules. Donkey & Horse. The name is the very definition of what happens when two species interbreed, i.e., mules are supposed to be sterile, and not capable of breeding. However, I’ve read of a mule that was supposedly not sterile, so it’s not proven. Can Lygers and/or Tigons breed? If they do, do the offspring have the same traits as the parents? Has anyone even investigated this?
Happen to believe that religion and evolution are not incompatible, but there are others in my own church who disagree. I don’t see it as worth burning gunpowder over.
Whatever differences we may entertain, I thank you for your service.
Also, as we both well know, the above is not the context in which I raised the issue.
”Were BB’s quotes accurate this time, or just invented quotes again?”
In the first place I don’t accept your premise sans detailed documentation. In the second place you may see for yourself in Farrand’s Records, Volume 1, Madison’s notes, Thursday, June 28th, In Convention, the relevant passage beginning on page 451. Or, if that’s too arduous, see my msg 221 in Intelligent Design, and Other Dumb Ideas.
Species interbreeding is a tangential issue to evolution through mutation and natural selection though. I don’t see how it is really relevant. But I would like to point out that different species most definitely CAN interbreed, but in the wild different species almost always breed within their own species.
But speaking of providence and a Creator and paraphrasing the Bible would (as I originally stated) not in any way be contradictory to Ben Franklin’s philosophy which was, according to the same autobiography which mentioned ‘Divine providence’ the philosophy of a “thorough Deist”.
So as I pointed out to bb, I wouldn’t go about quoting Franklin (or Thomas Jefferson) as supporting evidence for the notion that the founding principles of this nation were Christian to its core.
Beautifully and truly said, YHAOS. I also just loved this: "Brevity is pointless if it does not convey a comprehensible concept." The Constitution is amazing brief; but it definitely conveys a comprehensible concept: individual liberty under a system of equal laws. All power resides in the People and is retained by them, even though the people choose agents to execute certain narrowly defined delegated powers on their behalf. Divided government and the system of checks and balances is designed to prevent consolidation of power in the government, at the expense of individual liberty.
In short, it is a rule of law, not of men.
Kudos YHAOS for your marvelous essay/post! And thank you for your kind words.
Among the very limited mandates and enumerated powers given to the federal government in the Constitution is the mandate to promote the arts and Sciences, the necessity of a well regulated militia, and promotion of the general welfare; and the enumerated powers and restrictions given to the Federal Government for this were exclusive rights, a provision against infringement on the natural right to bear arms, and the included enumerated powers for promotion of the general welfare.
Just as I would not take a statement from a Conservative that the Constitution has a mandate to ‘promote the general welfare’ to mean they thought the government had unlimited power to carry out this mandate; neither would I take the statement that the Constitution has a mandate to ‘promote the arts and Sciences’ as meaning that the government had unlimited power to carry out that mandate.
I believe in specific and enumerated powers, and the clear meaning of the language of the Constitution (such that ‘public use’ denotes actual public use, and not ‘any conceivable public benefit’; and ‘the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’ to mean that our right to be armed shall not be infringed).
Why didn't you say that to my face?
What a strange mentality! You seem to suggest that if someone shows you valid evidence of something that you didn't anticipate or which you disagree with, then that person must either be seriously misinformed and therefore unqualified to speak, or is a dishonest person who is outright lying to you.
Whatta canard!
In this post in fact I should ping js##, sorry for not doing so, i’ll figure out how....
Brilliantly put, but what a dismal diagnosis and prognosis! Alas, I think you're likely right about this YHAOS.
The presidential election next year should tell us a lot. I actually believe that the 2008 election is fundamentally about what kind of an America we want to live in. We'll see.
Thank you so very much for writing!
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=98
William Steele closed the letter confident he had “faithfully stated the facts” motivated by a desire to “perpetuate the facts.” From this source, and others, one might easily draw the conclusion that Franklin’s efforts brought a harmonious reconciliation to the Convention.
James Madison, however, in a letter to Jared Sparks on April 8, 1831, referred to this account as “erroneously given, with every semblance of authenticity.” And then in another letter to Thomas S. Grimke (January 6, 1834), Madison went further in his clarification concerning the “proposition of Doctor Franklin in favor of a religious service in the Federal Convention.” He said:
The proposition was received and treated with the respect due to it; but the lapse of time which had preceded, with consternations growing out of it, had the effect of limiting what was done, to a reference of the proposition to a highly respectable Committee.
He then continued:
That the communication [Steele’s account of Dayton’s testimony] was erroneous is certain; whether from misapprehension or misrecollection, uncertain.
Madison’s Journal originally contained a summary of Franklin’s words. However, in a later revision, he inserted the speech as written in Franklin’s own handwriting. It is the authoritative source concerning the Convention.
Mr. President
The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other—our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes and ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, some we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of Government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.
In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection.—Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments be Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move—that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of the City be requested to officiate in that service—
Mr. Sherman (from Connecticut) seconded the motion.
Mr. Hamilton and several others expressed their apprehensions that however proper such a resolution might have been at the beginning of the convention, it might at this late day, 1, bring on it some disagreeable animadversions [criticisms], and 2, lead the public to believe that the embarrassments and dissensions within the Convention, had suggested this measure. It was answered by [Dr. Franklin], Mr. Sherman and others, that the past omission of a duty could not justify a further omission—that the rejection of such a proposition would expose the Convention to more unpleasant animadversions than the adoption of it: and that the alarm out of doors that might be excited for the state of things within, would at least be as likely to good as ill.
Mr. Williamson, observed that the true cause of the omission could not be mistaken. The Convention had no funds.
Mr. Randolph proposed in order to give a favorable aspect to the measure, that a sermon be preached at the request of the convention on the 4th of July, the anniversary of Independence; and thenceforward prayers be used in the Convention every morning. Dr. Franklin seconded this motion. After several unsuccessful attempts for silently postponing the matter by adjourning was at length carried, without any vote on the motion.
But the final word in this discussion comes from Franklin’s own pen. In John Bigelow’s, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, a footnote (pg. 378) referring to Franklin’s speech states:
To the original draft of this speech there is the following note appended in the handwriting of Dr. Franklin: “The convention, except three or four persons, thought prayer unnecessary.” [This same notation is given as a footnote on page 452 of Max Farrand’s Records of the Federal Convention.]
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.