Here Today... Gone To Hell!

The largest US science society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), urged a Pennsylvania federal court Friday to prohibit an anti-evolution doctrine known as "intelligent design" in biology classrooms.

The organization and the US National Center for Science Education issued a statement, supporting students' parents to sue the Dover school district, Pennsylvania, against its decision to include " intelligent design," which says life has a God-like creator, in the curriculum of ninth-grade biology classes.

The school district requires teachers to read a disclaimer prior to a unit on evolution. The disclaimer says that "intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view." It also notes that a reference book on intelligent design is available to students.

The parents and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said this policy violates the constitutional separation of church and state, which forbids teaching religion in public schools.

They also argued that intelligent design is unscientific and has no place in a science curriculum.

"The Dover disclaimer brings religion straight into the science classroom," said Alan Leshner, chief executive officer for the AAAS.

It misrepresents the state of knowledge about evolution, he said, and implies that a religious belief has a science base. And by referring students to a non-science text, the disclaimer "surely will confuse them about what is and is not science."

"Intelligent design" holds that nature is so complex it must have been the work of an God-like creator rather than the result of natural selection, as argued by Charles Darwin in his 1859 Theory of Evolution.

The Dover school district said there are "gaps" in evolution, which it emphasizes is a theory rather than established fact, and that students have a right to consider other views on the origins of life.

It also argued that it does not teach intelligent design directly but simply makes students aware of its existence as an alternative to evolution. It denied intelligent design is "religion in disguise", saying it is a scientific theory.

Under the influence of conservative religious groups, educational boards of several states have allowed, or will allow

the "intelligent design" doctrine to be taught in basic schools as a rival to the evolution theory.

The Pennsylvanian lawsuit, which is set to begin in a federal court on Sept. 26, will become a crucial sign in a new battle against the "intelligent design" movement, according to Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education.

"If the parents win the upcoming case, it will definitely throw sand in the gears of the 'intelligent design' movement," Scott said.

America (ie - the USA -  ::)) is a perpetual source of amazement no matter for how long I've been studying its society.
I've been reading a book called "Sacr?s Americains" written by Ted Stanger a Newsweek journalist living in Paris for years, Ted Stanger. His description of America is hilarious. Before labelling him anti-american, he wrote "Sacr?s Fran?ais" which is as hilarious as the first one cited.

SLC, did you watch the episode of The Daily Show in which Jon Stewart conducts a panel interview about evolution?  He made sure to represent the spectrum - from respectable scientist (Edward Larson) all the way to kooky lady with kooky theories.

Stewart asked a funny but pointed question about how could something "intelligent" have designed something as fussy as a scrotum.  I bring this up because the guy who provided the most though-provoking comments, IMO, was the man in the middle.  His name is Dembski.   

Dembski (who is formally trained as a scientist) replies that not all aspects of life are subject to Intelligent Design, but rather the question is: is there evidence of design in nature?   To me, as a practicing scientist, it is an intriguing question.   I dont presume to assume that the "Big G" is, in fact, the answer, but his question reminded me of all the times I have been awed while in the lab.   Of course, I dont write down in my lab book: "It's God!  God is the answer!  So I dont have to do a regression analysis on this data!  I can go home and play computer games!!"


The thing I like about Dembski (even if I dont agree with all his ideas) is that he appears to be genuinely interested in this subject as opposed to ranting on about hellfire, sin, turning people into salt, and whatnot.  He wrote an interesting article, "Is Intelligent Design Testable?" http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm. He believes that I.D. incorporates Darwinian evolution because it is the means by which organisms adapt to their environment, but he claims to not be convinced that the evidence we have seen for small-scale evolution (bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics) directly points to the large scale evolution.  I dont entirely agree, because systems build on top of each other just as a large computer program has levels of abstraction, but I like his approach. He does not appear to be politically motivated or taking biblical passages as fact.



To me the biggest problem is: I suspect that the politicians who endorse teaching I.D. in school are just seeing it as a way to teach creationism in school.  Whereas I.D. in my opinion provokes some interesting discussion, creationism on ther other hand is all about ONE particular viewpoint that has no bearing on reality (such as the Earth being created in 7 days...  ::)).  In that case, every fucking person can have a creationist theory!  Including the kooky lady on Jon Stewart's panel, and even the guy who mocks I.D. by proposing the Intelligent Spaghetti God as the creator: http://www.venganza.org/

I did see that show (The daily show is on my tivo season pass).

That is my problem with it. I believe in evolution led by God (whoever that is), but ID is just a crafty was to do what you wrote above. Keep your religious views out of school and away from my kid, thanks.

All Hail the flying Spaghetti Monster!!

This is my first real venture into a political thread so here goes. Why not have a choice for students? Either take R.E or Science depending on beliefs?

Intelligent design doctrine? Did scientists craft that statement or was it rhetoricians? It's a sad day for science when "scientists" are forcing their own subjective beliefs on students instead of letting them decide for themselves.

I'm so glad I'll never have kids.

Why not email them and ask?

 I'm sure they'll be plenty intimidated by your intellect.  ::)

look ill never look at someone who beleives in god and creationism, and tell them its flat out wrong, ill agree that science cant answer the good questions, however i will say that if they take the bible as a pure literal account of the formation of the world...... then their stupid. beleif in "god" and understanding in science can work in tandom.

personally if it all was taught in a purely objective manner, then i would be fine with both being taught. hoever i do lean more on science for teaching, and beleive that evolution and boom big bang and things began. In out ever expanding quest for understanding, their maybe an underlining force "engery" that is tied to everything. Some call it god, others allah, me i call it engery.

I actually think teaching "intelligent design" in school could open up a whole can of worms.

For people who are religious, their faith is very important to them and the last thing they want is some hack teaching it to their kids within the public school system.

This isn't about teaching religion in school. It's about telling people the truth, which is we don't know how life started and there is more than one theory.

Also, religion was part of American school life for a long time, without it being a problem, until a radical bolshevik Supreme Court banned it.

A radical bolshivik Supreme Court ?  :o When was that ?  :o :o

It happened in fantasy land....no real timeline, sorry.

State sponsored prayer was legal in public schools until the Engel v. Vitale case and it wasn't a problem. The country went along just fine.

Imagine this:

You go to school, they tell you about evolution and in religion classes you're taught about Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism... Nothing too deep, just tells you what they are like. What they believe in, their God(s) etc.

Is that possible?


Yes it is, that's how we were taught in school and that was back in the 80s/90s.

We had one class where Christianity was discussed, it was called Religion. Our science teacher was a religious man who didn't believe in evolution. He was forced to teach it anyway since that's what the school system was like.




/jarmo

and that was our school as well here, granted our Bio teacher....... she was all evolution, but she was relgious, in our relgious studies in highschool we were taught about different relgions and how their belif structures were simialr but differnet and thus not as good as ours. My great Grand fater beleived in god and relgion, though he could never understand relgious fighting, he said "There is only one God, he is mine hes is yours and he is some indian mans in india, theya re the same they are no different, we all want to get to him but we all want to take our own boat to get there, luckily there is more then one berth for us all, too bad everyone cant see that we are all the same and on the same journey."

I agree with just about everything you said.

If religion and evolution are approached stictly as an academic matter, within the applicable class, than it could be beneficial to all.

The problem is people often forget that evolution is a theory itself.? Yet it is held as absolute truth by many and any other possiblility - especially anything with a religious connotation - is treated like the plague.

I think as long as we keep in mind that evolution is a theory and not necessarily totally accurate, and that the Bible is by no means a history book there won't be a problem.  Of course the problem arises when young children are taught two totally different things.  Maybe we should hold off on teaching kids about these things until they're able to decide for themselves what theory or combination of theories they believe?  This is tough when you have some Christians who take the Bible totally literally, and scientists who are so stuck on one theory that they refuse to even consider anything else.  Only us truly intelligent people know that Axl created the world and all who inhabit it.

HARRISBURG, Pa. - "Intelligent design" is a religious theory that was inserted in a school district's curriculum with no concern for whether it had scientific underpinnings, a lawyer told a federal judge Monday as a landmark trial got under way.

"They did everything you would do if you wanted to incorporate a religious point of view in science class and cared nothing about its scientific validity," said Eric Rothschild, an attorney representing eight families who are challenging the decision of the Dover Area School District.

But in his opening statement, the school district's attorney defended Dover's policy of requiring ninth-grade students to hear a brief statement about intelligent design before biology classes on evolution.

"This case is about free inquiry in education, not about a religious agenda," argued Patrick Gillen of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich. "Dover's modest curriculum change embodies the essence of liberal education." The center, which lobbies for what it sees as the religious freedom of Christians, is defending the school district.

Eighty years after the Scopes Monkey Trial, the opening of the trial in federal court marked the latest legal chapter in the debate over the teaching of evolution in public school.

The eight families argue that the district policy violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

About 75 spectators crowded the courtroom of U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III for the start of the non-jury trial.

Arguing that intelligent design is a religious theory, not science, Rothschild said he would show that the language in the school district's own policy made clear its religious intent.

Dover is believed to be the first school system in the nation to require students be exposed to the intelligent design concept, under a policy adopted by a 6-3 vote in October 2004.

Intelligent design, a concept some scholars have advanced over the past 15 years, holds that Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms. It implies that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force.

Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism ? a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation ? camouflaged in scientific language, and it does not belong in a science curriculum.

"The intelligent-design movement is an effort to introduce creationism into the schools under a different name," Rothschild said before the trial got under way.

The history of evolution litigation dates back to the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, in which Tennessee biology teacher John T. Scopes was fined $100 for violating a state law that forbade teaching evolution. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed his conviction on the narrow ground that only a jury trial could impose a fine exceeding $50, and the law was repealed in 1967.

In 1968, the
U.S. Supreme Court overturned an Arkansas state law banning the teaching of evolution. And in 1987, it ruled that states may not require public schools to balance evolution lessons by teaching creationism.

The clash over intelligent-design is evident far beyond this rural district of about 3,500 students 20 miles south of Harrisburg.
President Bush has weighed in, saying schools should present both concepts when teaching about the origins of life.

In August, the Kansas Board of Education gave preliminary approval to science standards that allow intelligent design-style alternatives to be discussed alongside evolution.

Richard Thompson, the Thomas More center's president and chief counsel, said Dover's policy takes a modest approach.

It requires teachers to read a statement that says intelligent design differs from Darwin's view and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook, "Of Pandas and People," for more information.

"All the Dover school board did was allow students to get a glimpse of a controversy that is really boiling over in the scientific community," Thompson said.

The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that represents many scholars who support intelligent design, opposes mandating it in public schools. Nevertheless, it considers the Dover lawsuit an attempt to squelch voluntary debates over evolution.

"It's Scopes in reverse. They're going to get a gag order to be placed on teachers across the country," said institute senior fellow John West.

Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, which supports the teaching of evolution in public schools, said the controversy has little to do with science because mainstream scientists have rejected intelligent-design theory.

Intelligent design supporters "seem to have shifted virtually entirely to political and rhetorical efforts to sway the general public," Scott said. "The bitter truth is that there is no argument going on in the scientific community about whether evolution took place."

Some interesting reading:

http://www.physorg.com/news6847.html

Poll: Most doctors favor evolution theory

September 28, 2005

A national survey of 1,472 physicians indicates more than half -- 63 percent -- believe the theory of evolution over that of intelligent design.

The responses were analyzed according to religious affiliation.

When asked whether they agree more with intelligent design or evolution, 88 percent of Jewish doctors and 60 percent of Roman Catholic physicians said they agree more with evolution, while 54 percent of Protestant doctors agreed more with intelligent design.

When asked whether intelligent design has legitimacy as science, 83 percent of Jewish doctors and 51 percent of Catholic doctors said they believe intelligent design is simply "a religiously inspired pseudo-science rather than a legitimate scientific speculation." But 63 percent of Protestant doctors said intelligent design is a "legitimate scientific speculation."

The study was conducted by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research at The Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City and HCD Research in Flemington, N.J.

The May 13-15 poll had a margin of error plus or minus 3 percentage points.

---

http://livescience.com/othernews/050927_ID_cases.html

Anti-evolution Attacks on the Rise
posted: 27 September 2005
12:06 am ET

(http://images.livescience.com/images/0509_evolution_generic_01.jpg)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?"

--From the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution--

Editor's Note: As part of a special report on the theory of evolution and an alternative idea known as intelligent design, LiveScience reviews current legislation and historically pertinent court cases.

Current State Legislation Involving Evolution

In 1925, the Tennessee State Legislature passed the Butler Act, a bill aimed squarely at evolution that made it illegal to teach any theory that denied the biblical account of creation. The bill was promptly challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and thus began the famous Scopes Monkey Trial.

The plaintiff in the case was John T. Scopes, who was accused by the state of illegally teaching evolution to his high school biology class.  In the end, Scopes was fined $100 by the judge, but a year later the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the decision on a technicality and the case never went any further.

Since then, Darwin's theory of evolution has been tried by American courts 10 times (including a trial in Pennsylvania that began yesterday).

(http://www.livescience.com/images/050927_ID_cases.gif)

Two of those instances have been before the nation's Supreme Court. After each defeat, creationists have reinvented themselves in ever more sophisticated guises. First there was creationism, then creation science and now intelligent design, also known as ID.

On the heel of each reinvention came a rash of antievolution legislation. The same spate of activity has occurred with ID.

This year alone, at least 17 bills challenging evolution's place in the public school curriculum have been considered in 13 states. Many of them also argue that a place be made in the classroom for ID. Here they are:

Alabama
Introduced into the Alabama State Legislature earlier this year, House Bills (HB) 352 and 716 and Senate Bill (SB) 240 would have allowed teachers to "to present scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories" and the right of students to "hold positions regarding scientific views."
Status: Not Passed (all)

Arkansas
Introduced into the Arkansas House of Representatives in March, HB2607 would have required the State Department of Education to include "intelligent design" in school curriculums.
Status: Not Passed

Florida
Also known as the Academic Freedom Bill, HB837was introduced into the Florida House of Representatives in February and would have purportedly allowed students to sue teachers for teaching evolution.
Status: Not Passed

Georgia
Introduced into the Georgia House of Representatives in January, HB179 will require that facts ?inconsistent with or not supporting? evolution also be taught.
Status: Ongoing

Kansas
House Resolution (HR) 6018 was introduced into the Kansas House of Representatives in February and recommends the teaching of "the full range of scientific views that exist? in order to encourage ?objectivity in science education.?
Status: Passed but nonbinding

Mississippi
Introduced in January, SB2286 advocated for "balanced treatment to the theory of scientific creationism and the theory of evolution" and would have required "instruction in scientific theories of both evolution and scientific creationism if public schools choose to teach either."
Status: Not Passed

Missouri
Introduced last December, HB35 would have required that ?all biology textbooks sold to the public schools of the state of Missouri shall have one or more chapters containing a critical analysis of origins.?
Status: Not Passed

Montana
In March, two evolution-related measures failed to pass through the Montana State Legislature. One of them, LC1199, advocated the teaching of ?competing theories of origin.? The other, SJR8, endorsed "the importance of separation of church and state" and opposed including "theories commonly referred to as creationism, creation science, and intelligent design theory" in science classes.
Status: Not Passed (both)

New York
Introduced into the New York State Assembly in May, Assembly Bill 8036 would have required that "all pupils in grades kindergarten through twelve in all public schools in the state ... receive instruction in both theories of intelligent design and evolution."
Status: Not Passed

Oklahoma
Introduced in 2004, SB719 will allow school boards to use 20 percent of their textbook money on books not approved by the state, including religious or creationist text.
Status: Ongoing

Pennsylvania
Introduced in March, HB1007 will allow school boards to include "intelligent design" in curriculums containing evolution and allow teachers to use "supporting evidence deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of intelligent design."
Status: Ongoing

South Carolina
A section in SB114, a senate bill introduced in December 2004, would have required the creation of a committee to examine whether alternatives to evolution should be offered in schools; the section was subsequently removed in February. Introduced in June, SB909 will require that  ?where topics are taught that may generate controversy, such as biological evolution, the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, [and] why such topics may generate controversy??
Status: SB909 is still ongoing

Texas
Introduced in December 2004, HB220 will allow the state to decide what can be included in textbooks. The sponsor of the bill said he wanted to see creationism be taught alongside evolution and for the mention of evolution be removed from science textbooks
Status: Ongoing

Utah
Legislation requiring instruction of ?divine design? is being threatened in Utah.
Status: On hold

(cont'd)

Historical Court Cases Involving Evolution

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?"

Over the years, people attempting to ban evolution in classrooms or to peddle creationism as science have constantly found their efforts thwarted by these sixteen words. Known respectively as the ?Establishment Clause? and the ?Free Exercise Clause? of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, these two statements together form the foundation of religious freedom in this country.

Of the many court cases involving government and religion, nine have dealt specifically with the treatment of evolution and creationism in public schools. LiveScience reviews them here:

Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)
In 1968, Susan Epperson, a high school biology teacher in Little Rock, Arkansas, was faced with a dilemma: the school district had recently adopted a new biology textbook that included sections on evolution, but according to state law, it was illegal to teach them. Yet, if Epperson didn't teach evolution, she risked disciplinary action from the school board.

Epperson sued the state, and the case was brought before the Supreme Court. The court ruled that the law violated the Establishment Clause and concluded that the primary motivation behind it was a literal reading of the Book of Genesis. In other words, the court found that there were no secular reasons for not teaching evolution, only religious ones.

Segraves v. State of California (1981)
Kelly Segraves sued the state when he learned that his three young boys were being taught evolution at school, arguing that his and his childrens' freedom of religion were being violated.

The California Superior Court disagreed, pointing out that by law, scientific class discussions about the origins of life could focus only on how life might have developed, not on what its ultimate cause might be. Therefore, the teaching of evolution shouldn't be construed as either an establishment of religion or as an infringement upon anyone's religious beliefs.

McClean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982)
Finding their efforts to outlaw the teaching of evolution constantly rebuffed by the courts, creationists tried a different tactic: If evolution can be taught in public schools, isn't it only fair, they said, that alternative theories about the origins and development of life be taught as well?

Legislators in Arkansas thought so, and passed a law requiring the ?balanced treatment? of evolution with ?creation science.? When the case reached a federal court, however, the judge struck down the law and ruled that creation science wasn't really science because its language was based on creationist text.

Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)
If you can't beat them, join them.

That was the thinking of Louisiana legislators when they passed the state's ?Creationism Act,? which made it illegal to teach evolution unless creation science was taught as well.

The Supreme Court found the act unconstitutional. By implying that a supernatural being created humankind, creation science was an impermissible endorsement of religion. The court pointed out that teachers were never forbidden from presenting alternative scientific theories before the act was passed. Therefore, the real purpose of the act was to tack creationism onto any curriculum that included evolution.

Webster v. New Lenox School District (1990)
In 1987, an Illinois social studies teacher named Ray Webster began teaching creation science to his students after disagreeing with a textbook statement that said the earth was more than four billion years old.

A student complained, and when a school superintendent warned him to stop, Webster sued, claiming that his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were being violated.

The case was eventually brought before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that teaching creation science for any reason was a form of religious advocacy and that schools could prohibit teachers from teaching it.

Peloza v. Capistrano School District (1994)
Turning the tables on the scientific community, high school biology teacher Ray Peloza sued the Capistrano School District in California, claimed that ?evolutionism? was itself a kind of religion, one that promoted a secular worldview.

Teaching it in public schools therefore violated the First Amendment rights of both students and teachers, Peloza said, because it imposed a religion on the former and restricted the religious views of the latter.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals didn't agree and dismissed Peloza's claim, saying that it rested on the false assumption that evolution denied the existence of a creator. The court further ruled that a public employees right to free speech could be restricted while on the job because they are representing the government.

Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education (1997)
On the ostensible grounds of promoting critical thinking, the Tangipahoa School District in Louisiana passed a law requiring teachers to read aloud a disclaimer before teaching evolution. The disclaimer emphasized that evolution was only a ?theory? and that teaching it was ?not intended to influence or dissuade the Biblical version of Creation or any other concept.?

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals saw through the creationist ruse, however, and found that the disclaimer did not in fact promote critical thinking because it essentially told students not to question what they already knew. The judges further concluded that the motivation behind the disclaimer was religious and therefore unconstitutional.

LeVake v. Independent School District 656 (2001)
When Rodney LeVake, a high school biology teacher in Minnesota, began teaching the students in his 10th grade biology class ?evidence both for and against the theory? of evolution, the school principal became uneasy and reassigned LeVake to the 9th grade.

LeVake sued, arguing that he was being discriminated against because of his religion and that his right to free speech was being violated in order to silence his criticisms of evolution.?

The district court judge ruled that it was a public school teacher's responsibility to teach evolution according to the curriculum and that teachers could be prevented from teaching a biology course if they couldn't adequately teach evolution.

Selman v. Cobb County School District (2005)
In 2002, Georgia's Cobb County School District began placing stickers in its newly adopted high-school biology textbooks stating that: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Five local parents sued the school district, claiming that the stickers inhibited the teaching of evolution and promoted a view about the origins of life that was faith-based.

A district court judge agreed and said the sticker? "misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community." The judged ruled that the stickers undermined the first amendment and that the stickers must be removed.

---

This is the last in a four part series. The preceding articles can be found here:

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/050922_ID_main.html (Part 1)

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050923_ID_science.html (Part 2)

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050926_ID_belief.html (Part 3)