| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"MrPepper11" |
| Date: |
12 Nov 2004 09:57:00 AM |
| Object: |
Pa. School Mandates Teaching of 'Intelligent Design' |
November 12, 2004
School Mandates Alternate Evolution Theory
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
DOVER, Pa. (AP) -- When talk at the high school here turns to
evolution, biology teachers have to make time for Charles Darwin as
well as his detractors. With a vote last month, the school board in
rural south-central Pennsylvania community is believed to have become
the first in the nation to mandate the teaching of "intelligent
design," which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have
been created by an unspecified higher power.
Critics call the change in the ninth-grade biology curriculum a veiled
attempt to require public schoolchildren to learn creationism, a
biblical-based view that credits the origin of species to God. Schools
typically teach evolution, the theory that Earth is billions of years
old and that life forms developed over millions of years.
The state American Civil Liberties Union chapter is reviewing the
Dover Area School District case. Its Georgia counterpart, meanwhile,
is fighting a suburban Atlanta district's decision to include a
warning sticker in biology textbooks that says evolution is "a theory,
not a fact."
"What Dover has done goes much further than what's happened in
Georgia," said Witold Walczak, legal director of the Pennsylvania
ACLU. "As far as we can tell, Dover is the first school district that
has actually mandated intelligent design."
The district enrolls about 2,800 students. It encompasses the small,
rural community of Dover borough, about 20 miles south of Harrisburg,
and a patchwork of farmland and newer suburban developments in several
surrounding townships.
The revision was spearheaded by school board member William
Buckingham, who heads the board's curriculum committee.
"I think it's a downright fraud to perpetrate on the students of this
district, to portray one theory over and over," said Buckingham. "What
we wanted was a balanced presentation."
Buckingham wanted the board to adopt an intelligent-design textbook,
"Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins," as
a supplement to the traditional biology book, but no vote was ever
taken. A few weeks before the new science curriculum was approved, 50
copies were anonymously donated to the high school.
Although Buckingham describes himself as a born-again Christian and
believes in creationism, "This is not an attempt to impose my views on
anyone else," he said.
Two of the dissenting board members, Carol Brown and her husband,
Jeff, were so upset that they resigned after the 6-3 vote on Oct. 18.
"We have a vocal group within the community who feel very strongly in
an evangelical Christian way that there is no separation of church and
state," Carol Brown said. "Our responsibility to is to represent the
viewpoints of all members of the community."
Statewide science-curriculum standards approved by Pennsylvania's
state Education Board merely ask students to "analyze data ... that
are relevant to the theory of evolution."
When the standards were revised three years ago, the board considered
language that would have required students to consider evidence that
did not support evolution, but the board dropped the idea after
critics alleged it would have led to the widespread teaching of
creationism in public schools.
Critics of intelligent design contend it is creationism repackaged in
more secular-sounding language.
"Creationism in a cheap tuxedo," said Nicholas Matzke, project
information specialist for the National Center for Science Education
in Oakland, Calif., which advocates for the teaching of evolution.
Even the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports scientists
studying intelligent-design theory, opposes mandating it in schools
because it is a relatively new concept, said John West, associate
director of the institute's Center for Science and Culture.
"We're completely against anyone who says you should downgrade or
limit the teaching of evolution," West said.
Dover biology teacher Jennifer Miller said the curriculum changes have
left her uncertain about how to approach her evolution lesson.
"If you put the words 'intelligent design' into my curriculum, then I
have to teach it," said Miller, a 12-year veteran. "I'm not sure what
that means as to how in-depth we have to go. ... I'm looking for more
direction from the school board."
Neither Assistant Superintendent Michael Baksa, who oversees the
district's curriculum, nor Superintendent Richard Nilsen responded to
telephone calls and e-mail messages.
Jonathan Tome, whose three sons attend Dover schools, applauded the
measure.
"You can't be hypocritical with these kids, teaching them one thing
but not another," said Tome, 43.
But sophomore Courtney Lawton said she didn't have a problem learning
only about evolution in biology class last year.
"I just think they should keep it the way it is, and they shouldn't
add anything about a higher power," said Lawton, 15. "People who
believe differently, they might feel like they're being segregated."
.
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: Pa. School Mandates Teaching of 'Intelligent Design' |
12 Nov 2004 01:28:16 PM |
|
|
"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote in message
news:57cfd534.0411120757.1c5def4d@posting.google.com...
November 12, 2004
School Mandates Alternate Evolution Theory
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
-snip-
Statewide science-curriculum standards approved by Pennsylvania's
state Education Board merely ask students to "analyze data ... that
are relevant to the theory of evolution."
When the standards were revised three years ago, the board considered
language that would have required students to consider evidence that
did not support evolution, but the board dropped the idea after
critics alleged it would have led to the widespread teaching of
creationism in public schools.
Sounds fine. Shouldn't take more than a few minutes to consider evidence
that "does not support evolution".
Now... where's the evidence that supports "Intelligent Design"?
I suspect we'll be waiting a long time to hear any.
I certainly hope this school board is mandating the teaching of evidence
that "does not support" other scientific theories, like gravity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Pa. School Mandates Teaching of 'Intelligent Design' |
12 Nov 2004 03:23:29 PM |
|
|
You obviously have never been to http://www.answersingenesis.org/
"Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in message
news:6aGdnS-TdLHfkwjcRVn-sw@giganews.com...
"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote in message
news:57cfd534.0411120757.1c5def4d@posting.google.com...
November 12, 2004
School Mandates Alternate Evolution Theory
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
-snip-
Statewide science-curriculum standards approved by Pennsylvania's
state Education Board merely ask students to "analyze data ... that
are relevant to the theory of evolution."
When the standards were revised three years ago, the board considered
language that would have required students to consider evidence that
did not support evolution, but the board dropped the idea after
critics alleged it would have led to the widespread teaching of
creationism in public schools.
Sounds fine. Shouldn't take more than a few minutes to consider evidence
that "does not support evolution".
Now... where's the evidence that supports "Intelligent Design"?
I suspect we'll be waiting a long time to hear any.
I certainly hope this school board is mandating the teaching of evidence
that "does not support" other scientific theories, like gravity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: Pa. School Mandates Teaching of 'Intelligent Design' |
19 Nov 2004 12:49:36 PM |
|
|
"Steve" <steve_nospam@dnspad.com> wrote in message
news:10paaesr4gopqe8@corp.supernews.com...
You obviously have never been to http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Sure have. It was pretty amusing, but.... I'm not sure what that had to do
with my post. Care to elaborate?
"Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in message
news:6aGdnS-TdLHfkwjcRVn-sw@giganews.com...
"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote in message
news:57cfd534.0411120757.1c5def4d@posting.google.com...
November 12, 2004
School Mandates Alternate Evolution Theory
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
-snip-
Statewide science-curriculum standards approved by Pennsylvania's
state Education Board merely ask students to "analyze data ... that
are relevant to the theory of evolution."
When the standards were revised three years ago, the board considered
language that would have required students to consider evidence that
did not support evolution, but the board dropped the idea after
critics alleged it would have led to the widespread teaching of
creationism in public schools.
Sounds fine. Shouldn't take more than a few minutes to consider evidence
that "does not support evolution".
Now... where's the evidence that supports "Intelligent Design"?
I suspect we'll be waiting a long time to hear any.
I certainly hope this school board is mandating the teaching of evidence
that "does not support" other scientific theories, like gravity.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nivlem" |
|
| Title: Re: Pa. School Mandates Teaching of 'Intelligent Design' |
12 Nov 2004 09:23:38 PM |
|
|
Steve wrote:
You obviously have never been to http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Thanks for the laugh, man. Really. Allow me to trade you a URL.
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
"Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in message
news:6aGdnS-TdLHfkwjcRVn-sw@giganews.com...
"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote in message
news:57cfd534.0411120757.1c5def4d@posting.google.com...
November 12, 2004
School Mandates Alternate Evolution Theory
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
-snip-
Statewide science-curriculum standards approved by Pennsylvania's
state Education Board merely ask students to "analyze data ... that
are relevant to the theory of evolution."
When the standards were revised three years ago, the board considered
language that would have required students to consider evidence that
did not support evolution, but the board dropped the idea after
critics alleged it would have led to the widespread teaching of
creationism in public schools.
Sounds fine. Shouldn't take more than a few minutes to consider evidence
that "does not support evolution".
Now... where's the evidence that supports "Intelligent Design"?
I suspect we'll be waiting a long time to hear any.
I certainly hope this school board is mandating the teaching of evidence
that "does not support" other scientific theories, like gravity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Pa. School Mandates Teaching of 'Intelligent Design' |
12 Nov 2004 01:39:59 PM |
|
|
(MrPepper11) wrote in message news:<57cfd534.0411120757.1c5def4d@posting.google.com>...
November 12, 2004
School Mandates Alternate Evolution Theory
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
[...] With a vote last month, the school board in
rural south-central Pennsylvania community is believed to have become
the first in the nation to mandate the teaching of "intelligent
design," [...]
Hopefully the instructors will also be free to compare the two and
discuss the evidence for each.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Pa. School Mandates Teaching of 'Intelligent Design' |
13 Nov 2004 11:43:07 AM |
|
|
On 12 Nov 2004 11:39:59 -0800, (Dave) wrote:
MrPepper11@go.com (MrPepper11) wrote in message news:<57cfd534.0411120757.1c5def4d@posting.google.com>...
November 12, 2004
School Mandates Alternate Evolution Theory
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
[...] With a vote last month, the school board in
rural south-central Pennsylvania community is believed to have become
the first in the nation to mandate the teaching of "intelligent
design," [...]
Hopefully the instructors will also be free to compare the two and
discuss the evidence for each.
That being?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Pa. School Mandates Teaching of 'Intelligent Design' |
12 Nov 2004 04:06:50 PM |
|
|
Will they actually be teaching ID, or the same old "teach the
controversy" scam the the Discovery Institute loves so much? Seems to
me that the ID lobby has nothing to teach but scattergun attacks on
evolution using the same arguments as the Creation "Science" bunch
were trotting out 30 years ago...
Sad really. If they spent half as much time doing real research as
they do whinging about bias in the scientific community or lobbying
education boards maybe they'd actually be taken seriously.
I await the disclaimers on gravity, heliocentrism, quantum mechanics,
etc, etc ;)
Andrew
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
