NYT: California Parents File Suit Over Origins of Life Course

[DeepModem Mom]

California Parents File Suit Over Origins of Life Course
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: January 11, 2006


A group of parents are suing their small California school district to force it to cancel a four-week high school elective on intelligent design, creationism and evolution that it is offering as a philosophy course.

The course at Frazier Mountain High School in Lebec, which serves a rural area north of Los Angeles, was proposed by a special education teacher last month and approved by the board of trustees in an emergency meeting on New Year's Day. The 11 parents are seeking a temporary restraining order to stop the course, which is being held during the session that ends on Feb. 3.

Last month, a Federal District Court in Pennsylvania ruled that it was unconstitutional to teach intelligent design in a public school science class because it promoted a particular religious belief. After the ruling, people on both sides of the debate suggested that it might be constitutionally permissible to examine intelligent design in a philosophy, comparative religion or social studies class.

But the parents, represented by lawyers with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, contend that the teacher is advocating intelligent design and "young earth creationism" and is not examining those ideas in a neutral way alongside evolution....

***

In their suit, the parents said the syllabus originally listed 24 videos to be shown to students, with 23 "produced or distributed by religious organizations and assume a pro-creationist, anti-evolution stance." They said the syllabus listed two evolution experts who would speak to the class. One was a local parent and scientist who said he had already refused the speaking invitation and was now suing the district; the other was Francis H. C. Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, who died in 2004....


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/11/national/11design.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1136995361-38hOa1Rr+G0803y2g6YAoA

[meganmonkey]

1. This is just a damn shame

This SHOULD be a reasonable topic for a philosophy class, as far as discussing theory vs. fact, about discussing if and how evolution can fit into a spiritual belief system...and so on.

But having read the whole article, I see that the teacher is coming from a blatently anti-science/pro-religion stand point, and that really sucks.

[teenagebambam]

6. Teacher's viewpoint doesn't matter

If it's an elective course, and taught as Philosophy, what's the problem? We don't want Fundies "burnihg our books", we shouldn't "burn" theirs.

[Mountainman]

9. Fundies have no right to teach religion in public schools period!

You want to teach your kid ID, go ahead at home, in church or in a private school. Public schools are paid for by people like me who pay property tax and I do not want fundies preaching thier religion to my kids!

[meganmonkey]

14. Yeah, but the materials they use DO matter:

And considering of the 2 evolution experts they lined up - one had refused and the other one is DEAD!

"...the syllabus originally listed 24 videos to be shown to students, with 23 "produced or distributed by religious organizations and assume a pro-creationist, anti-evolution stance." They said the syllabus listed two evolution experts who would speak to the class. One was a local parent and scientist who said he had already refused the speaking invitation and was now suing the district; the other was Francis H. C. Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, who died in 2004...."

:shrug:

[Zhade]

26. The teacher's viewpoint most certainly DOES matter.

If the teacher in question is doing as this one is, and pulling almost all course materials from sources that support the mythical bullshit known as "young earth creationism" - which is another way of saying "creationism as detailed in the Christian bible" - then it is an explicit violation of the separation of church and state.

Contrary to the entirely wrong notion that this belongs in school AT ALL, where it is allowed is in a neutral setting. This is not such a setting.

[JerseygirlCT]

29. Poor teaching

that's what the matter is.

A course like that cannot be effective if it's merely an instrument of proseltyzing for a particular point of view. It would need to show pros and cons, an equal number of texts/ videos, etc. from each differing viewpoint.

It COULD be a good discussion. (And, I'm quite certain were all sides presently objectively, most would also come to the conclusion that ID is a crock.)

This does not sound like a well-thought-out and sincere effort, but rather another insidious attempt to pull far-out, unscientifically valid and religious principles into public education.

[Zhade]

25. Yep, it's a clear violation of separation.

My tax dollars will NOT pay for this kind of deceitful religion-in-through-the-back-door bullshit!

[HereSince1628]

2. So then, Palley's "argument from design" shouldn't be taught either?

Palley's essay is a pretty standard component in most introductory philosophy classes. And ID is in many ways just an elaboration on the argument from design.

Liberally educated people should have some knowledge of intelligent design.

[mike_c]

4. yep-- they should know it's a fallacy that exists, just like...

...the idea that miasmas are responsible for disease and the notion that the moon is made of green cheese. Or that the sun rides around the sky on a golden chariot. And the earth is flat.

We don't waste the time of intelligent liberally educated people teaching them the philosphical and theoretical underpinnings of these fallacious notions-- we mention them in passing as errors humankind passed through on the way to current understanding of the truth. Yes, students need to know they existed, if for no other reason than keeping their memory alive helps to insure that we don't make the same mistakes again, but this is clearly an attempt to teach intelligent design in a manner that will reinforce it, rather than note it's fallacy.

[HereSince1628]

17. Well I don't agree. You might think it is a waste, others don't.

"We don't waste the time of intelligent liberally educated people teaching them the philosphical and theoretical underpinnings of these fallacious notions-- we mention them in passing as errors..."

That would be a true in a Biology class, because dealing "creators/designers" which are metaphysical in nature violates foundational tenets of the discipline.

It isn't true of philosophy where metaphysical issues are indeed part of the canon of the discipline. If a public school is teaching philosophy, the course is likely to deal with metaphysical ideas including basic philosophical concepts of religion. Since many religions involve the idea of deities the philosophical arguments about dieties are part of that subject area.

You are of course free to hold and advocate any position, but there are many people even atheist leaning folks who like myself would not be part of the "we" to which you allude. This other "we" that I belong to think that understanding the arguments of things we don't believe in is useful and important.

Obviously, a teacher could construct and implement a course in an improper fashion, and that should be prevented but that's a decision that must be made on a case by case basis.

[Ronnie]

8. Why?

I'm a retired teacher, and, believe me, if all the things kids "should have some knowledge of" were taught in school, school would be in session 24/7. This course belongs in a church.

[HereSince1628]

16. And I'm a Biology Prof...obviously not everyone takes everything

however, religion is a standard component in an intro philosophy course and the argument from design is typically included in that section.

I disagree that philosophy of religion shouldn't be taught. A course that promotes one religion or one sect might reasonably be argued to be improper in a public school. But understanding positions of religious philosophy is something different.

[hunter]

21. Don't bother reasoning with them. They expect you to be reasonable.

But the vast majority of people pushing these sorts of ID classes know very well they are being duplicitous. They don't understand philosophy any more than they understand evolution.

You treat them just like you'd treat any obnoxious snake oil salesman who puts his foot in your door.

"Back off now, mister, or you'll be leaving this place without your toes."

It also helps to have some big snarling dogs behind you.

[The White Tree]

3. Maybe that's the point and focus of the course

I could see it now. It would certainly put an end to the debate.

Teacher: Now class, on this final day our course on the Origins of Life, I would like to introduce you to a very special guest, Francis H. C. Crick. Mr. Crick as many of you should know was a co-discoverer of the structure of DNA which plays a crucial role in our discussions about life, evolution and intelligent design.

Now you may or may not be aware of the next fact about Mr. Crick, which is that he unfortunately died in 2004. Perhaps I should say fortunately, for us, not him, I mean. You see class, he will be appearing today as a special envoy from God himself, resurrected for your education and mine to clarify the truth about evolution and intelligent design. That's right, you will be getting your information from a guy who has now gotten the final word from the great almighty and this hopefully should allow you all to understand the right truth of it all.

Now pay attention class, for immediately following Mr. Crick's speech we will be having a pop final exam. The title of the exam is The Rapture.

So without delay, straight from, well I'll let that be our little secret, after an excruciating resurrection, the esteemed and genially repentant, Mr. Francis Crick.....
O8) :evilfrown: :evilgrin: :sarcasm:

[superconnected]

10. The point is to turn the schools into churches. The fundies don't actuall

care about how the world was created, they care about getting it in the schools and then making everything under the umbrella of their hostile God.

It's going to be persecutions from deuteronomy and leviticus (known as cleansings), that they take their cues from, becasue they can't find the kill everyone crap in the New Testament.

Homosexuality is a purity problem, they would feel needs cleansed.

Anyway, if they get it in the schools, they will recruit more people into beliving that cleansing and killing is justified for God.

Their God is not the usual Christian God. Their God hates everyone and demands murder. Unfortunately, it won't be good for a country. IT will warp brains pretty quickly, especially people who would hook on to something that "justifies" violence and murder.

[gristy]

5. 24 videos in a 4-week class?

They watch will watch videos in class every friggin' day? wtf?

[Sivafae]

11. Yeah it certainly doesn't sound like a lot of discussion will happen.n/t

[superconnected]

12. They're supposed to absorb the propaganda

and then vote fundy.

[superconnected]

7. I'm christian and I believe in evolution and every Christian I know does

" the syllabus originally listed 24 videos to be shown to students, with 23 "produced or distributed by religious organizations and assume a pro-creationist, anti-evolution stance."

This is unreal. It's bizarre. The fundy God is pretty limited if he can't handle science.

[Zhade]

28. That's because you're not an IDiot.

NT!

[warrens]

13. Dead man talking

A speaker who died in 2004? Sounds like they were trying to make it SOUND even-handed, but making sure it wouldn't be.

Anyone who doesn't realize that evolution is responsible for the world we live in today is simply so ideologically corrupt that they can't be trusted to think clearly about anything. Apart from gravity, there's no scientific principle that is so freaking obvious. It takes mental backflips a mile high to avoid the logical conclusion; everything alive in this world was selected for (for whatever reason, some of them artificial) and the things that have disappeared were selected against. Wild strawberries "learned" to stay tough and sour until their seeds were mature, at which point they became sweet and tasty to attract birds, who then scattered the seeds. Strawberries that matured too quickly had immature seeds and became extinct.

This stuff is so obvious, but you have a few million screeching morons trying to pretend that some mythic being invented everything in six days, and there things remain. It's hopeless arguing with them; they have no interest in logical debate. They want you to believe their religion, lock-stock-barrel- or nothing.

[movonne]

20. And they believe in bush(a good Christian man) lock-stock-barrel...

[progressivebydesign]

15. Ah Lebec. A little slice of hell in the mountains.

You could relocate it to the deep south and never notice it. Not a progressive place. I'm not surprised. It would be more accurate to describe it as South of Bakersfield, rather than North of L.A.

[Le Taz Hot]

18. The parents have brought suit

to block it. What else do you want? You know, if the Dems in general and too many people at DU don't start to get a frickin' clue that condescention toward rural dwellers does NOT win anyone over to your side, all you guys have to look forward to is more loss. Goddess forbid that Lebec be associated with Los Angeles 'cause we know NO ONE in L.A. is signed on to Free Republic, listens to Faux news or blindly votes Republican. You people need to THINK before you insult a whole damned group/class of people (throughout the nation, I might add).

I get so sick of this fight here!

LTH
Fresno

[daleo]

19. Properly done, this could be acceptable

From the sounds of it, though, this is not properly done.

Talk about setting up a straw man to argue with - "Class, this is Dr. Crick, a well-known proponent of evolution. Aren't you Dr. Crick. Speak up please, we can't hear you, Dr. Crick. Well, class, I guess the doctor has changed his mind about evolution."

[hunter]

22. And pigs could fly...

God could make pigs fly, right?

What's that, you say? You don't believe in God?

You must be one of them misguided evolutionists...

I don't expect they have any intention of seeing it "properly done."

[VegasWolf]

23. Pigs can fly!!! and whales can float in azure skies!!!

oh wait, that's the LSD talking. Sorry.

[Toots]

24. IMO if they can teach Plato they can teach this

What is Plato's philosophy if it isn't religious?

[hunter]

27. They don't care about philosophy.

What they want to do is to break down the separations between church and state. They want to use our tax money to wedge their evangelical fundamentalist Christianity into the public school curriculum.

[Ladyhawk]

30. Yes, they do.

I grew up fundy and they do have an agenda. They see every non-fundy as one of two things: 1) a potential convert, or 2) a temptation. They cannot treat non-Christians as human beings. I know because I've been there.

Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that they convert the entire world to their point of view by any means possible. Don't give them an inch!

[hunter]

32. Of course I meant in the normal academic sense of Plato, etc...

Yes, not an inch.

[superconnected]

31. Yep and then spew hate ideologys and procure votes for their candidates.