California high school class pits evolution against religion
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20060106-1753-ca-evolutiondebate.html
San Diego Union Tribune - United States

5:53 p.m. January 6, 2006

FRESNO - A rural California high school jumped into the national debate
over teaching an alternative to evolution this week, offering the
religion-based theory of "intelligent design" in a philosophy course.

Less than a month after a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled against
teaching the theory as science, a divided school board said Frazier
Mountain High School in Lebec could teach the four-week winter session
class after making the curriculum more philosophical and less scientific.

"It's really just a philosophy class," said John Wight, superintendent of
El Tejon Unified School District. "We don't take a position."

But some in the town of 1,285 perched in the Tehachapi mountains dividing
the agricultural Central Valley from Los Angeles, about 75 miles south,
wonder if the "Philosophy of Design" course is a sneaky way to introduce
the theory that livings things are so complex they must have been designed
by a higher being.

The class taught by a minister's wife shocked some school board members
when they learned that three experts on intelligent design were scheduled
to speak while two evolution experts listed as guest speakers were not
coming.

One of the evolution experts disagreed with the class. The other, Nobel
laureate Francis Crick, who co-discovered the double-helix structure of
DNA, died in 2004.

"I had concerns about the credibility of the content, and whether it was
balanced," said board member Kitty Jo Nelson, who was in the minority when
the board voted 3-2 on Sunday in a special session to allow the course. "I
believe in critical thinking, in giving students the opportunity to look
at
various options, but I wasn't sure if this was the place to start."

Intelligent design was dealt a significant blow Dec. 20 when U.S. District
Judge John E. Jones III in Pennsylvania said the Dover, Pa., school board
violated the constitutional separation of church and state when the
subject
was included in its science curriculum.

Around the country, school officials have been wondering whether to
introduce the theory supported by religious groups without inviting
lawsuits.

In North Dakota, administrators from several districts said students could
not use it as a topic in debate tournaments. The Kansas Board of Education
is reviewing new science standards for its public schools that would
mention the theory.

The California Department of Education wasn't aware of similar courses
being taught in the state, but schools aren't required to notify it about
curriculum, a spokeswoman said.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell wasn't familiar
with the class, but has been outspoken against the teaching of intelligent
design as science.

"In a true philosophy class, if it's one of many concepts being discussed,
I have no problem," O'Connell said.

Experts on both sides said the debate is scientific in nature, despite
what
the class is called.

"The primary issues are scientific, relating to biology, geology, and so
on," said John Calvert, of the Kansas-based Intelligent Design Network,
which disseminates material in support of the subject. "As the discussion
occurs, it'll become clear that it needs to move to a science class
because
that's where the expertise is."

Intelligent design opponents fear that teaching the subject as philosophy
is a way of introducing it as a scientifically valid point of view on par
with evolution, whether or not it's in an official science class.

**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education

You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v.
Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

California high school class pits evolution against religion
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20060106-1753-ca-evolutiondebate.html
San Diego Union Tribune - United States

5:53 p.m. January 6, 2006

FRESNO – A rural California high school jumped into the national debate
over teaching an alternative to evolution this week, offering the
religion-based theory of "intelligent design" in a philosophy course.

Less than a month after a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled against
teaching the theory as science, a divided school board said Frazier
Mountain High School in Lebec could teach the four-week winter session
class after making the curriculum more philosophical and less scientific.

"It's really just a philosophy class," said John Wight, superintendent of
El Tejon Unified School District. "We don't take a position."

But some in the town of 1,285 perched in the Tehachapi mountains dividing
the agricultural Central Valley from Los Angeles, about 75 miles south,
wonder if the "Philosophy of Design" course is a sneaky way to introduce
the theory that livings things are so complex they must have been designed
by a higher being.

The class taught by a minister's wife shocked some school board members
when they learned that three experts on intelligent design were scheduled
to speak while two evolution experts listed as guest speakers were not
coming.

One of the evolution experts disagreed with the class. The other, Nobel
laureate Francis Crick, who co-discovered the double-helix structure of
DNA, died in 2004.

"I had concerns about the credibility of the content, and whether it was
balanced," said board member Kitty Jo Nelson, who was in the minority when
the board voted 3-2 on Sunday in a special session to allow the course. "I
believe in critical thinking, in giving students the opportunity to look at
various options, but I wasn't sure if this was the place to start."

Intelligent design was dealt a significant blow Dec. 20 when U.S. District
Judge John E. Jones III in Pennsylvania said the Dover, Pa., school board
violated the constitutional separation of church and state when the subject
was included in its science curriculum.

Around the country, school officials have been wondering whether to
introduce the theory supported by religious groups without inviting
lawsuits.

In North Dakota, administrators from several districts said students could
not use it as a topic in debate tournaments. The Kansas Board of Education
is reviewing new science standards for its public schools that would
mention the theory.

The California Department of Education wasn't aware of similar courses
being taught in the state, but schools aren't required to notify it about
curriculum, a spokeswoman said.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell wasn't familiar
with the class, but has been outspoken against the teaching of intelligent
design as science.

"In a true philosophy class, if it's one of many concepts being discussed,
I have no problem," O'Connell said.

Experts on both sides said the debate is scientific in nature, despite what
the class is called.

"The primary issues are scientific, relating to biology, geology, and so
on," said John Calvert, of the Kansas-based Intelligent Design Network,
which disseminates material in support of the subject. "As the discussion
occurs, it'll become clear that it needs to move to a science class because
that's where the expertise is."

Intelligent design opponents fear that teaching the subject as philosophy
is a way of introducing it as a scientifically valid point of view on par
with evolution, whether or not it's in an official science class.

**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education

You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************