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.
The statement is analogous to the statement: "Yes, a paraplegic can drive a car." I could say that my car has a manual transmission and no hand controls, so a paraplegic probably cannot drive my car, but that does not exclude him from driving a car. The specific state of my car negates the statement "a paraplegic can drive any car" but not the statement "a paraplegic can drive a car".
Evolution says a chimp mates with the chimp that looks the most like megan fox, because chimps dont like each others looks. so over millenia, chimps start to get hairless and good looking.
How about you show us some mutants that are superior to their parents, and some transitional fossils that show marked improvement?
That's just a variation of the "tornado in a junkyard" argument that Hoyle used against abiogenesis, and he was just as lost using it as you are.
No.....it......doesn’t.
But many revere their flawed interpretation of "science" as a God.
I've seen self-proclaimed "anti-religion" folks castigate "religion" with a rather ironic religious fervor, all too oftern citing, but twisting, "science" as their doctrinal underpinning. for believing as they do.
Surely, with all the lawyers on DI's staff, they could have rushed out and filed an injunction. Unless, of course, they thought they could get more mileage by whining and crying about how "persecuted" the are ...
LOL
Might I point out that I wasn't the one making the statement that called for proof?
All the same, one could point to the existence of antibiotic resistant bacteria, which have evolved due to our overuse of antibiotics (evolution in bacteria happens more quickly than in higher life forms, because their life span is so short).
As far as humans go, have you ever seen suits of armor from the middle ages? A child might be able to fit in them, but most grown men could not today because humans are generally taller than they were 400 years ago.
Or they realized they didn't have a case.
Their diets where atrocious 400 years ago, among other factors.
Were do you think they where most atrocious?
“It was, of course, a lie “
What is the source of that passage? By that I mean, where did Dukas and Hoffman get it?
are you frightened and confused by young earth creationists?
That would explain a lot if you were.
I love your postscript. How about Support Our Troops, Withdraw Democrats from Washington!
Why do people assume God is as mean-spirited as they are?
May you some day realize your need for Christ. He opens eyes; he doesn’t blind them.
My definition of Hell is being apart from God. I don't wish it on anyone. I made the decision to accept Jesus as my Lord and savior.
In answer to your question, I'm personally forgiven of my sins. How about you?
Furthermore, according to documentary evidence, essentially all of the surviving suits of armor were ceremonial models, not intended as combat dress, and usually built to 3/4 or 7/8 scale.
Does the Pope believe that Jesus Christ was born, died and rose from the grave to His Father in heaven? Leave a message on Benedict’s cell phone to call you back.
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.