ACLU sues over ?intelligent design? in Pa.

Suit challenges policy on teaching

alternative to evolution theory

 

The Associated Press

Updated: 4:43 p.m. ET Dec. 14, 200

LINK

 

HARRISBURG, Pa. - Eight families have sued a school district that is requiring students to learn about alternatives to the theory of evolution, claiming the curriculum violates the separation of church and state.

 

The American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State said the lawsuit was the first to challenge whether public schools should teach ?intelligent design,? which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by some higher power. The two organizations are representing the parents in the federal lawsuit.

 

The Dover Area School District voted 6-3 on Oct. 18 to include intelligent design in the ninth-grade science curriculum, in what is believed to be the first such requirement in the country.

 

The ACLU contends that intelligent design is a more secular form of creationism ? a Bible-based view that credits the origin of species to God ? and may violate the constitutional separation of church and state.

 

One of the parents bringing suit, Tammy Kitzmiller, expressed concern that the school board would mandate the teaching of ?something that isn?t accepted as science.? Kitzmiller has two children who attend Dover High School, where teachers of ninth-grade biology are expected to discuss evolution sometime next month.

 

School officials had no immediate comment on the lawsuit.

 

At least one other district has recently become embroiled in federal litigation over teaching evolution. A federal judge in Georgia is considering the constitutionality of a suburban Atlanta district?s decision to include a warning sticker about evolution in biology textbooks.

 

Two of the three dissenting board members have resigned in protest. Angie Yingling, a board member who originally supported the policy, said she later reconsidered her vote.

 

?Anyone with half a brain should have known we were going to be sued,? she said. ?You can?t do this.?

 

I have one bone to pick with the writer of this article... Since when is "Creationism" or "intelligent design" (whichever you prefer, is the same thing), a Plausible scientific theory? Creationism is not and never will be an "alternative to the Evolution" theory!!! :mad :

1st of all, creationism and intelligent design are not the same thing. creationism reffers to the bible god creating the earth as explained in the bible, intelligent desing just says that some god had to create the universe, not the bible god, not in the way the bible describes it.

 

anyhow, i still haven't found the scientist who can knockdown the cosmological argument for the existence of god.

1st of all, creationism and intelligent design are not the same thing. creationism reffers to the bible god creating the earth as explained in the bible, intelligent desing just says that some god had to create the universe, not the bible god, not in the way the bible describes it.

 

anyhow, i still haven't found the scientist who can knockdown the cosmological argument for the existence of god.

635632[/snapback]

 

That is because the existence of God can not be proven on a scientific context.

 

Creationism and Intelligent Design are the same thing as you described above. They both try to "teach" (or indoctrinate I might say) that God created us.

While there is perhaps some merit in the case, it still is another attack by the ACLU on anything remotely Christian.

While there is perhaps some merit in the case, it still is another attack by the ACLU on anything remotely Christian.

635634[/snapback]

 

Perhaps is just the ACLU defending us from Christian fundamentalism.

how? by teaching atheist fundamentalism.

 

i understand not teaching religion per se, but shielding kids away from the neverending quest that has dominated huumankind since its existence is dumb. the search for a god, for an origin, for an identity and a purpose have been the cornerstone of our existence in this planet. just to try to erase it because of some technicality or political correctness is not just dumb, it's wrong.

While there is perhaps some merit in the case, it still is another attack by the ACLU on anything remotely Christian.

635634[/snapback]

 

Perhaps is just the ACLU defending us from Christian fundamentalism.

635636[/snapback]

That's something we need to stop. I'm hoping it will end with the final Bush term.

While there is perhaps some merit in the case, it still is another attack by the ACLU on anything remotely Christian.

635634[/snapback]

 

Perhaps is just the ACLU defending us from Christian fundamentalism.

635636[/snapback]

 

I'm not going to argue the actual case itself, because I personally don't think creationism should be in science texbooks. However, the ACLU has shown time after time that it will attack anything that is Christian, such as with the public displaying of nativity scenes, which is considered a separation of church and state issue (when displayed in a government setting, city hall or something like that). The first amendment is meant to protect the citizens from having the government impose a religion on the people. That doesn't mean that society itself has to be "secularized" by the government, which is what the ACLU would like to have occur.

how? by teaching atheist fundamentalism.

 

 

How can there be such a thing as atheist fundamentalism?

 

 

i understand not teaching religion per se, but shielding kids away from the neverending quest that has dominated huumankind since its existence is dumb. the search for a god, for an origin, for an identity and a purpose have been the cornerstone of our existence in this planet. just to try to erase it because of some technicality or political correctness is not just dumb, it's wrong.

 

What's stopping their parents or church from teaching religion to them? Why does it have to be the school's job?

However, the ACLU has shown time after time that it will attack anything that is Christian, such as with the public displaying of nativity scenes, which is considered a separation of church and state issue (when displayed in a government setting, city hall or something like that).

 

The ACLU wouldn't "attack" these things if ordinary citizens didn't feel the need to stop it. All the Christian conservatives whine about the ACLU when they try to stop Christian values from being imposed on non-Christians but won't say jack when the ACLU defends some KKKers right to be an a-hole in public.

 

 

The first amendment is meant to protect the citizens from having the government impose a religion on the people. That doesn't mean that society itself has to be "secularized" by the government, which is what the ACLU would like to have occur.

 

If a government entity (in this case a public school) teaching kids a religious (not necessarily Christian, but still promotes the concept of religion) doctrine (intelligent design) doesn't count as an imposition of religion on the people, then what does?

If a government entity (in this case a public school) teaching kids a religious (not necessarily Christian, but still promotes the concept of religion) doctrine (intelligent design) doesn't count as an imposition of religion on the people, then what does?

635667[/snapback]

 

Actually,in the issue of schools and creationism, I agree with the ACLU's position. I was making a point about the ACLU in general, not so much a case like this one specifically.

how? by teaching atheist fundamentalism.

 

i understand not teaching religion per se, but shielding kids away from the neverending quest that has dominated huumankind since its existence is dumb. the search for a god, for an origin, for an identity and a purpose have been the cornerstone of our existence in this planet. just to try to erase it because of some technicality or political correctness is not just dumb, it's wrong.

635639[/snapback]

 

How about NO fundamentalism from anybody. Last I checked, evolution has nothing to do with Atheists and everything to do with scientific experiment.

 

I don't want ANY particular religious or philosophic belief to be taught in schools. Plain and simple.

 

BTW, I am a catholic and believe in God, just in case you think I am a "godless liberal". I just think it is wrong to teach gospel as scientific evidence of our existence.

The ACLU is picking a terrible battle as usual. MCTSD made an excellent point, the ACLU choses this fight b/c it is somehting that by spitting hairs is based on christianity. However, intelligent design and creationism are quite different. Intelligent design is a theory in which the universe is so complex there must have been a guiding force, this force does not need to be a deity, it could be even a mass of energy. Since intelligent design is nondemoninational it should be taught along side with evolution as an alternative theory. In order to see it as a violation of seperation of church and state you need to look at it through a foggy lens. The idea is secular as the article speaks, it is not the same as christian creationism, it is not affiliated wiht any church, and there is no legal baiss for restricting it. In fact restriction of this theory being taught along w evolution seems like somehting a dictator will do in order to have a monopoly on thought. This ACLU move is at the same level in hurting our civil liberties as the 10 commandments in front of the alabama court house

The ACLU is picking a terrible battle as usual. MCTSD made an excellent point, the ACLU choses this fight b/c it is somehting that by spitting hairs is based on christianity. However, intelligent design and creationism are quite different. Intelligent design is a theory in which the universe is so complex there must have been a guiding force, this force does not need to be a deity, it could be even a mass of energy. Since intelligent design is nondemoninational it should be taught along side with evolution as an alternative theory. In order to see it as a violation of seperation of church and state you need to look at it through a foggy lens. The idea is secular as the article speaks, it is not the same as christian creationism, it is not affiliated wiht any church, and there is no legal baiss for restricting it. In fact restriction of this theory being taught along w evolution seems like somehting a dictator will do in order to have a monopoly on thought. This ACLU move is at the same level in hurting our civil liberties as the 10 commandments in front of the alabama court house

635673[/snapback]

 

Explain something to me. If you believe something or someone created the Univerese, then even if you 'mask' it under the guise of "Intelligent Design" you are still implying that there is a "mysterious" force that created us, for which there is NO scientific evidence at all. It is still something some people believe.

 

Evolution is a widely accepted scientific theory or "law of life". A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Where is the scientific basis for believing that a guiding force created the Universe?

The ACLU is picking a terrible battle as usual. MCTSD made an excellent point, the ACLU choses this fight b/c it is somehting that by spitting hairs is based on christianity. However, intelligent design and creationism are quite different. Intelligent design is a theory in which the universe is so complex there must have been a guiding force, this force does not need to be a deity, it could be even a mass of energy. Since intelligent design is nondemoninational it should be taught along side with evolution as an alternative theory. In order to see it as a violation of seperation of church and state you need to look at it through a foggy lens. The idea is secular as the article speaks, it is not the same as christian creationism, it is not affiliated wiht any church, and there is no legal baiss for restricting it. In fact restriction of this theory being taught along w evolution seems like somehting a dictator will do in order to have a monopoly on thought. This ACLU move is at the same level in hurting our civil liberties as the 10 commandments in front of the alabama court house

635673[/snapback]

 

Explain something to me. If you believe something or someone created the Univerese, then even if you 'mask' it under the guise of "Intelligent Design" you are still implying that there is a "mysterious" force that created us, for which there is NO scientific evidence at all. It is still something some people believe.

 

Evolution is a widely accepted scientific theory or "law of life". A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Where is the scientific basis for believing that a guiding force created the Universe?

635681[/snapback]

 

Intelligent design answers quesitons left unanswered by previous theories

Intelligent design answers quesitons left unanswered by previous theories

635682[/snapback]

 

What questions, what answers and how was this "experimented" on.

The ACLU is picking a terrible battle as usual. MCTSD made an excellent point, the ACLU choses this fight b/c it is somehting that by spitting hairs is based on christianity. However, intelligent design and creationism are quite different. Intelligent design is a theory in which the universe is so complex there must have been a guiding force, this force does not need to be a deity, it could be even a mass of energy. Since intelligent design is nondemoninational it should be taught along side with evolution as an alternative theory. In order to see it as a violation of seperation of church and state you need to look at it through a foggy lens. The idea is secular as the article speaks, it is not the same as christian creationism, it is not affiliated wiht any church, and there is no legal baiss for restricting it. In fact restriction of this theory being taught along w evolution seems like somehting a dictator will do in order to have a monopoly on thought. This ACLU move is at the same level in hurting our civil liberties as the 10 commandments in front of the alabama court house

635673[/snapback]

What kid understands such complexity as not necessarily being a straight up proof that there must be God and in doing so says God is that which we must acklowedge exists? It amazes me how much people try to affect society indirectly rather than stating their clear motives. Id like to know what percentage of people who support this stuff would, if forced to be honest, also like to see the establishment clause removed from the Constitution.

 

The ACLU deals with civil liberties. Those who seek to traverse civil liberties might be more of the religious right as clearly seen in other examples. The ACLU has stayed consistent in its defense of liberties. I cant say the same for other so called proponents of liberty who conveniently put it aside under acceptable circumstances.

The ACLU is picking a terrible battle as usual. MCTSD made an excellent point, the ACLU choses this fight b/c it is somehting that by spitting hairs is based on christianity. However, intelligent design and creationism are quite different. Intelligent design is a theory in which the universe is so complex there must have been a guiding force, this force does not need to be a deity, it could be even a mass of energy. Since intelligent design is nondemoninational it should be taught along side with evolution as an alternative theory.

 

 

The first word in intelligent design is INTELLIGENT, thus suggesting that something consciously designed the universe to work a certain way, i.e. a god. That's religion. There's nothing secular about the concept. You could only argue that if there was a scientific basis for testing the theory, which there is not.

Im not a religous at all ! But the creation of the universe has not been answered. Not one scientist can tell me exactly how the universe was created, it is all THEORY. I dont think that public schools should tell kids that a Christian GOD created the universe, the 7 days bit, let there be light etc etc, but to teach kids various theories, whether it be "evolution" "big bang" or that there was a "guiding force" etc is ok with me. Lets not have a narrow mind when explaining the origins of the universe because tell me what was here before the creation of the universe. All I am saying is that giving multiple ways of explaining exsistance is ok with me.

Teaching intelligent design in a science class isn't right. It's not science. Scientific theories are devised using the scientific method; intelligent design was not.

 

Sure evolution is just a theory. But it is the best explination we have right now. There are plenty of other theories taught in science classes because they were devised scientifically and are the best explinations.

 

So why not propose teaching alternatives to other theories? That's right - they don't come into conflict with Christian dogma. Teaching intelligent design in a science class is not only wrong because it isn't science, but it is a clear and obvious attempt to insert religion into schools.

 

Just like the stickers on the textbooks in Georgia, this is not something that should be done. If parents have a problem with their kids learning about evolution, it is their job to teach them the alternative theories on their own (or send them to a religious place to be taught it).

 

The ACLU has every right to bring forth this lawsuit.

I cant remember ever being taught that the origin of existence is or has been proven or anything of the sort. They simply do not teach that. Nor do they teach the big bang as being the origin of all thing. They simply say the evidence shows an event such as a big bang may be responsible for the existance of stars and the ever expanding universe as it is right now but not necessarily all origin. Nor can I ever remember being taught that the origin of all existance comes from evolution. This idiocy of semantics that some of you are engaging in amazes me. Nobody is ever taught the origin of all things ever ever in school.

 

Rather the problem people have with the teaching of evolution boils down to the problems people had during the Scopes trial. If you think we did not evolve from other creature, that is we humans alone, then you are ignoring the piles of evidence because youd rather focus on mere origin.

 

The intelligent design theory which deals with origin of all seeks to supplant the evolution theory which deals with we humans in order to impose a view that we humans have not necessarily evolved but were put here by God the ordered creature. Thats the central issue here.

 

Is there evidence that humans evolved from other creatures? Yes.

Is there evidence that humans themselves were created by God? No

Is there evidence that either God or science created all things which then humans came from via evolution? No. Does evolution claim that? No. Does religion/intelligent design? Yes.

 

The origin of existence should not be taught in any manner. The development of humans should be since there is evidence to it and it plays a massive role in science and medicine. If Intelligent design can match evolution in its evidence for human development, Id like to see it.

If parents have a problem with their kids learning about evolution, it is their job to teach them the alternative theories on their own (or send them to a religious place to be taught it).

 

The ACLU has every right to bring forth this lawsuit.

 

Exactly.

The ACLU can do whatever they want to do, they have that right. I am not arguing that. All I am saying is that I have no problem with "intelligent design" being taught in school. I agree it doesnt belong in an upper level science class, but in general discussion, in a philosophical discussion I feel that there is no problem with exposing my child to that. All in all no one knows exactly how it begin, so I dont want anyone teaching my kids this and passing it along as fact, as long as they say this is all theory and that there are many theories I am all for it.

have you guys even read darwin?

 

what's evolution? a guy sat down and watch animals and concluded, based on observation that we have evolved. great.

 

guess how intelligent design came about?

what's evolution? a guy sat down and watch animals and concluded, based on observation that we have evolved

 

His observational data is not all that modern evolution theory is based on. To me thats the equivilant of saying "Have you guys ever read Copernicus? A guy just sat there and looked at the stars."

 

Though he started it, he has been given a bit more backup by subsequent research. The physiological data is immense. Plus DNA research is revealing that that fool who watched animals was pretty correct.

 

Its like debating whether, when we are being chased by an animal, it is God who is giving us new energy or whether he who observes that the chemical adreniline increases immensley can show that its actually our body that does it on its own.