What the heck is going on
with biology education in
the USA???
In South Carolina:
- Feb 2006: The Education Oversight Committee disapproved the State
Science Standards approved by the Board of Education, based on the wording
of the biology standards referencing evolution.
In South Carolina:
- Feb 2006: The Education Oversight Committee disapproved the State
Science Standards approved by the Board of Education, based on the wording
of the biology standards referencing evolution.
Original: The student will demonstrate an understanding of biological evolution
and the diversity of life.
In South Carolina:
- Feb 2006: The Education Oversight Committee disapproved the State
Science Standards approved by the Board of Education, based on the wording
of the biology standards referencing evolution.
Original: The student will demonstrate an understanding of biological evolution
and the diversity of life.
The EOC recommended the following change:
EOC suggestion: The student will demonstrate an understanding of biological
evolution and the diversity of life by using data from a variety of sources to
investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.
In South Carolina:
- Feb 2006: The Education Oversight Committee disapproved the State
Science Standards approved by the Board of Education, based on the wording
of the biology standards referencing evolution. The EOC recommended the
following change:
Original: The student will demonstrate an understanding of biological evolution
and the diversity of life.
EOC suggestion: The student will demonstrate an understanding of biological
evolution and the diversity of life by using data from a variety of sources to
investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.
On March 3, 2006, the BOE rejected the EOC recommendation and reaffirmed
their commitment to the original approved standards.
In South Carolina:
- Feb 2006: The Education Oversight Committee disapproved the State
Science Standards approved by the Board of Education, based on the wording
of the biology standards referencing evolution. The EOC recommended the
following change:
Original: The student will demonstrate an understanding of biological evolution
and the diversity of life.
EOC suggestion: The student will demonstrate an understanding of biological
evolution and the diversity of life by using data from a variety of sources to
investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.
On March 3, 2006, the BOE rejected the EOC recommendation and reaffirmed
their commitment to the original approved standards.
Many scientists and educators suggested that "critical analysis" was 'code' for
the introduction of bogus challenges to evolution and non-scientific alternatives
like ID...why only specify evolution for 'critical analysis'?
In South Carolina:
WHAT'S GOING ON HERE???
HOW CAN SCIENTISTS OPPOSE CRITICAL
ANALYSIS??
ISN'T THAT WHAT SCIENCE IS ALL ABOUT??
YES, BUT....
historical
context
matters...
The 'evolution' of the ID Movement:
The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the courts,
guarantees that:
• individuals will have freedom of religious
expression;
The 'evolution' of the ID Movement:
The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the courts,
guarantees that:
• individuals will have freedom of religious
expression;
• the government and its agencies will not
recognize one religious faith as more valid
than any other faith or secularism;
The 'evolution' of the ID Movement:
The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the courts,
guarantees that:
• individuals will have freedom of religious
expression;
• the government and its agencies will not
recognize one religious faith as more valid
than any other faith or secularism;
• the government and its agencies will not
promote religion above secularism or vice
versa.
The 'evolution' of the ID Movement:
The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the courts,
guarantees that:
• individuals will have freedom of religious
expression;
• the government and its agencies will not
recognize one religious faith as more valid
than any other faith or secularism;
• the government and its agencies will not
promote religion above secularism or vice
versa.
1) So, you can't teach Christianity as religious TRUTH.
The 'evolution' of the ID Movement:
The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the courts,
guarantees that:
• individuals will have freedom of religious
expression;
• the government and its agencies will not
recognize one religious faith as more valid
than any other faith or secularism;
• the government and its agencies will not
promote religion above secularism or vice
versa.
1) So, you can't teach Christianity as religious TRUTH.
2) with Sputnik launch in 1957, there was an emphasis on science ed. in the USA...
which meant more evolution in biology class...
The 'evolution' of the ID Movement:
The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the courts,
guarantees that:
• individuals will have freedom of religious
expression;
• the government and its agencies will not
recognize one religious faith as more valid
than any other faith or secularism;
• the government and its agencies will not
promote religion above secularism or vice
versa.
1) So, you can't teach Christianity as religious TRUTH.
2) with Sputnik launch in 1957, there was an emphasis on science ed. in the USA...
which meant more evolution in biology class...
3) 1962 - Supreme Court - can't have officially sponsored prayer in school
The 'evolution' of the ID Movement:
Some conservative Christians saw these developments as an
assault on their values, and as an assault on their TRUTH.
The 'evolution' of the ID Movement:
Some conservative Christians saw these developments as an
assault on their values, and as an assault on their TRUTH.
1) If Christianity can't be taught as truth, then maybe, at least,
evolution can be REMOVED.
The 'evolution' of the ID Movement:
Some conservative Christians saw these developments as an
assault on their values, and as an assault on their TRUTH.
1) If Christianity can't be taught as truth, then maybe, at least,
evolution can be REMOVED.
***** Reveals an important false dichotomy******
Only those believing that the Bible is literally and historically
inerrant see evolution as necessarily inconsistent with their
religion.
The 'evolution' of the ID Movement:
Some conservative Christians saw these developments as an
assault on their values, and as an assault on their TRUTH.
1) If Christianity can't be taught as truth, then maybe, at least,
evolution can be REMOVED.
***** Reveals an important false dichotomy******
Only those believing that the Bible is literally and historically
inerrant see evolution is necessarily inconsistent with their
religion.
So, they attempted to get evolution out of schools by making it
illegal to teach evolution (sensu Skopes trial of 1925!)
1968 - Epperson vs. Arkansas - Supreme Court rules that
teaching evolution can't be prohibited.
The 'evolution' of the ID Movement:
1) So, you can't teach Christianity as religious truth.
2) But in science, evolution can't be prohibited as scientific
truth...
The 'evolution' of the ID Movement:
1) So, you can't teach Christianity as religious truth.
2) But in science, evolution can't be prohibited as scientific
truth...
3) If Christian conservatives could get creationism defined
as a science, it could be taught as scientific truth...
The 'evolution' of the ID Movement:
- and so "scientific creationism" was introduced...called the
"equal time" argument or the "two model" approach.
The 'evolution' of the ID Movement:
In 1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, a federal court held that a
"balanced treatment" statute violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S.
Constitution.
The Arkansas statute required public schools to give balanced treatment to
"creation-science" and "evolution-science". In a decision that gave a detailed
definition of the term "science", the court declared that "creation science" is not
in fact a science. The court also found that the statute did not have a secular
purpose, noting that the statute used language peculiar to creationist literature
in emphasizing origins of life as an aspect of the theory of evolution. While the
subject of life's origins is within the province of biology, the scientific
community does not consider the subject as part of evolutionary theory, which
assumes the existence of life and is directed to an explanation of how life
evolved after it originated. The theory of evolution does not presuppose either
the absence or the presence of a creator.
The 'evolution' of the ID Movement:
The decision recognizes the false dichotomy of "God" OR "evolution"
1) NOT in opposition
The 'evolution' of the ID Movement:
The decision recognizes the false dichotomy of "God" OR "evolution"
And it affirms that supernatural causality is untestable and not science.
(not "false" in a metaphysical sense, but not "science").
1) NOT in opposition
2) It's NOT science
The 'evolution' of the ID Movement:
In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional
Louisiana's "Creationism Act". This statute prohibited the teaching of evolution
in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in "creation
science". The Court found that, by advancing the religious belief that a
supernatural being created humankind, which is embraced by the term
creation science, the act impermissibly endorses religion.
The 'evolution' of the ID Movement:
In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional
Louisiana's "Creationism Act". This statute prohibited the teaching of evolution
in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in "creation
science". The Court found that, by advancing the religious belief that a
supernatural being created humankind, which is embraced by the term
creation science, the act impermissibly endorses religion.
so..... where did literalists go from here? They want to say
the earth was created by God, but they can't say 'God' did
it or it is promoting religion over secularism... so they
attribute creation to an unnamed 'intelligent designer'...
The 'evolution' of the ID Movement:
In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional
Louisiana's "Creationism Act". This statute prohibited the teaching of evolution
in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in "creation
science". The Court found that, by advancing the religious belief that a
supernatural being created humankind, which is embraced by the term
creation science, the act impermissibly endorses religion.
so..... where did literalists go from here? They want to say
the earth was created by God, but they can't say 'God' did
it... so they attribute creation to an unnamed 'intelligent
designer'...
and thus, in 1990, the Intelligent Design movement was
born.
The 'evolution' of the ID Movement:
The fundamental premise of ID:
There are structures which are composed of multiple, interdependent parts
that could not be acquired sequentially (through evolution). ID proponents call
these structures "irreducibly complex"... suggesting they were designed de
novo by an 'intelligent designer'.
The 'evolution' of the ID Movement:
The fundamental premise of ID:
This is NOT a new idea... the complexity of nature was used by Aquinas as a
"Proof of God", and was used by Paley (1802) in his 'Natural Theology'...
The 'evolution' of the ID Movement:
The fundamental premise of ID:
Darwin used the comparative method to reveal the logical and empirical fallacy
of this perspective.
1) Just because we can't envision how it might occur does not mean that IT
CAN'T occur.... this is also called the "argument of personal incredulity." (This
is the logical fallacy of 'irreducible complexity')
2) If intermediates exist now, then they could exist as a transitional
sequence. (This is the empirical disproof of 'irreducible complexity')
The 'evolution' of the ID Movement:
The fundamental premise of ID:
There are structures which are composed of multiple, interdependent parts
that could not be acquired sequentially (through evolution). ID proponents call
these structures "irreducibly complex"... suggesting they were designed de
novo by an intelligent designer.
But now the ID proponents use molecular structures as examples... such as
the flagellum. Or blood clotting proteins.
Miller's response:
His examples for "irreducible complexity" are wrong.... they are reducible
in principle.
Flagellum:
- 40 of 42 flagellar proteins have homologs that are used in other things
- some flagella don't have the inner core proteins and cross-link (picture)
- type III secretory vesicles have subunits but not "tail" and function
Miller's response:
His examples for "irreducible complexity" are wrong.... they are reducible
in principle.
Clotting Proteins:
- Fish lack 2-3 clotting proteins found in mammals, but blood clots...
A Little History....
2003 - The South Carolina Senate was considering S153, a bill dealing with
instructional materials and textbooks. On April 9 an amendment was offered by
State Sen. Mike Fair (R- Greenville) with the following key provision:
The following must be placed in all science books published for kindergarten
through twelfth grade:
'The cause or causes of life are not scientifically verifiable. Therefore, empirical
science cannot provide data about the beginning of life.'
A Little History....
2003 - The South Carolina Senate was considering S153, a bill dealing with
instructional materials and textbooks. On April 9 an amendment was offered by
State Sen. Mike Fair (R- Greenville) with the following key provision:
The following must be placed in all science books published for kindergarten
through twelfth grade:
'The cause or causes of life are not scientifically verifiable. Therefore, empirical
science cannot provide data about the beginning of life.'
A Little History....
When another Senator objected, because of the cost involved, the bill and
amendment were postponed.
"Sen. Fair, irritated that a study done for the Fordham Foundation gave South
Carolina an "A" for how well it teaches evolution, is challenging the premise of
Darwin's widely accepted theory. He bases his argument on the fact that no
one was there when life began to make a scientific observation about it."
- Greenville News, April 15, 2003
A Little History....
"Fair, a Republican from Greenville, said he's disappointed the measure didn't
go through this year but he's prepared to give it another push in 2004.
"I'll just have to be patient," he said."
- Greenville News, June 14, 2003
I'll just have to be patient
A Little History....
"Fair said Darwinism isn't supported by scientific evidence. He points to a
theory called intelligent design, which argues that the complexity of life on
Earth doesn't seem likely to develop through natural selection and random
mutation, as Darwinism holds. He believes Darwin's theory is "foolish" and is a
religious belief in itself. "
"Evolution as change within a species has been observable in the
fossil record, but change from one species to another species hasn't
been observable,"
Fair said."
- Greenville News, June 14, 2003
A Little History....
In January 2004, Senator Fair introduced Senate Bill S114, which would
establish The South Carolina Science Standards Committee. this committee
would:
(1) study science standards regarding the teaching of the origin of species;
(2) determine whether there is a consensus on the definition of science;
(3) determine whether alternatives to evolution as the origin of species
should be offered in schools."
- Senate Bill s.114
"science"??.....
hmmmm...
A Little History....
"The bill calls for creating a 19-member committee that would hear testimony
from top scientists and report to the General Assembly on "whether
alternatives to evolution as the origin of species should be offered in schools."
"I think it would be a great opportunity to hear from national experts on both
sides of the issue," said Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, who put forward the
idea. "I think it would be a great exercise."
A Little History....
"The bill calls for creating a 19-member committee that would hear testimony
from top scientists and report to the General Assembly on "whether
alternatives to evolution as the origin of species should be offered in schools."
"I think it would be a great opportunity to hear from national experts on both
sides of the issue," said Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, who put forward the
idea. "I think it would be a great exercise."
He said his intention is to show that
Intelligent Design is a viable scientific
alternative that should be taught in the
public schools. Scientists who espouse
Intelligent Design question whether random
mutation and natural selection — the
cornerstone's of Darwin's theory of
evolution — can account for the complexity
of life.
- Greenville News, May 1, 2004
A Little History....
On June 1, 2005, Senator Fair introduced Senate Bill S. 909 which would:
"require students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from
religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. 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, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific
discoveries can profoundly affect society."
The State - August 6, 2005
A Little History....
"Fair said the bill he has proposed wouldn’t prevent teachers from discussing
evolution, but would require them to present other theories — like intelligent
design — to students.
Fair acknowledged that his Christian beliefs play a part in his desire for other
theories besides evolution to have a chance in the classroom."
The State - August 6, 2005
Back to the Story....
so now Senator Fair has encouraged "critical analysis" of evolution. Why do
scientists oppose this language?
Back to the Story....
so now Senator Fair has encouraged "critical analysis" of evolution. Why do
scientists oppose this language?
Because history shows the true intent of this language and its promoters... not
to truly reflect on the evidence, but to introduce alternative non-scientific views
like intelligent design into the classroom.
Back to the Story....
so now Senator Fair has encouraged "critical analysis" of evolution. Why do
scientists oppose this language?
Because history shows the true intent of this language... not to truly reflect on
the evidence, but to introduce alternative non-scientific views like intelligent
design into the classroom.
Amazingly, Senator Fair continues to suggest:
"critical analysis has nothing to do with intelligent design,
the Discovery Institute, or religion....." (Feb 13, 2006)
Back to the Story....
so now Senator Fair has encouraged "critical analysis" of evolution. Why do
scientists oppose this language?
Because history shows the true intent of this language... not to truly reflect on
the evidence, but to introduce alternative non-scientific views like intelligent
design into the classroom.
Amazingly, Senator Fair continues to suggest:
"critical analysis has nothing to do with intelligent design,
the Discovery Institute, or religion....." (Feb 13, 2006)
hmmm... where did he get this idea about 'critical analysis'?
A Curious Connection....
The Discovery Institute is a conservative 'think-tank' that runs the Center for
Science and Culture. The CSC lobbies aggressively to policymakers for wider
acceptance of intelligent design and against the theory of evolution and what it
terms "scientific materialism." To that end the CSC works to advance a policy it
terms the Wedge Strategy, of which the "Teach the Controversy" campaign is a
major component, dedicated to portraying evolution as a "theory in crisis".
- condensed from Wikkepedia (Mar 16, 2006)
A Curious Connection....
Dr. Stephen Meyer, (Ph. D. in Philosophy, Cambridge) founding member of DI,
wrote the book on this strategy.
A Curious Connection....
Dr. Stephen Meyer, (Ph. D. in Philosophy, Cambridge) founding member of DI,
wrote the book on this strategy.
In convincing Ohio to include "critical analysis" language, he made the
following suggestions before the Ohio BOE:
A Curious Connection....
Dr. Stephen Meyer, (Ph. D. in Philosophy, Cambridge) founding member of DI,
wrote the book on this strategy.
In convincing Ohio to include "critical analysis" language, he made the
following suggestions before the Ohio BOE:
"(1) First, I suggested--speaking as an advocate of the
theory of intelligent design--that Ohio not require
students to know the scientific evidence and arguments
for the theory of intelligent design, at least not yet."
"Teach the Controversy" - Meyer
A Curious Connection....
Dr. Stephen Meyer, (Ph. D. in Philosophy, Cambridge) founding member of DI,
wrote the book on this strategy.
In convincing Ohio to include "critical analysis" language, he made the
following suggestions before the Ohio BOE:
"(2) Instead, I proposed that Ohio teachers teach the
scientific controversy about Darwinian evolution.
Teachers should teach students about the main
scientific arguments for and against Darwinian theory.
And Ohio should test students for their understanding of
those arguments, not for their assent to a point of view."
"Teach the Controversy" - Meyer
A Curious Connection....
Dr. Stephen Meyer, (Ph. D. in Philosophy, Cambridge) founding member of DI,
wrote the book on this strategy.
In convincing Ohio to include "critical analysis" language, he made the
following suggestions before the Ohio BOE:
"(3) Finally, I argued that the state board should permit,
but not require, teachers to tell students about the
arguments of scientists, like Lehigh University
biochemist Michael Behe, who advocate the competing
theory of intelligent design."
"Teach the Controversy" - Meyer
A Curious Connection....
Dr. Stephen Meyer, (Ph. D. in Philosophy, Cambridge) founding member of DI,
wrote the book on this strategy.
As a consequence of his arguments, Ohio adopted the 'critical analysis'
language in their standards in 2005:
"Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze
aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this benchmark does not
mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design)."
- Ohio State Science Standards - Grade 10 - Biology
A Curious Connection....
Dr. Stephen Meyer, (Ph. D. in Philosophy, Cambridge) founding member of DI,
wrote the book on this strategy.
As a consequence of his arguments, Ohio adopted the 'critical analysis'
language in their standards in 2005:
"Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects
of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this benchmark does not mandate the
teaching or testing of intelligent design)."
- Ohio State Science Standards - Grade 10 - Biology
- On Feb 14, 2006, after seeing lesson plans that
include intelligent design, the Ohio BOE vote to delete
the 'critical analysis of evolution' language from the
standards.
A Curious Connection....
So, the critical analysis language is pulled directly from the "teach the
controversy" strategy of Discovery Institute; a strategy that was successful for
a short time in Ohio.
A Curious Connection....
So, the critical analysis language is pulled directly from the "teach the
controversy" strategy of Discovery Institute; a strategy that was successful for
a short time in Ohio.
And yet, Senator Fair says:
"critical analysis has nothing to do with intelligent design, the Discovery
Institute, or religion....." (Feb 13, 2006)
A Curious Connection....
So, the critical analysis language is pulled directly from the "teach the
controversy" strategy of Discovery Institute; a strategy that was successful for
a short time in Ohio.
And yet, Senator Fair says:
"critical analysis has nothing to do with intelligent design, the Discovery
Institute, or religion....." (Feb 13, 2006)
hmmm.... well how ABOUT religion?
A Curious Connection....
The Discovery Institute is ALL ABOUT religion. Here is their "Wedge Strategy":
"The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the
bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be
detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including
representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts
and sciences....
A Curious Connection....
The Discovery Institute is ALL ABOUT religion. Here is their "Wedge Strategy":
"...Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack
by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the
traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin,
Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual
beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely
impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the
unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic
conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from
politics and economics to literature and art"...
A Curious Connection....
The Discovery Institute is ALL ABOUT religion. Here is their 'Wedge Strategy":
"...Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks
nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing
together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the
humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in
biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific
materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of
nature.
A Curious Connection....
The Discovery Institute is ALL ABOUT religion. Here is their 'Wedge Strategy":
"GOALS
•To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political
legacies.
•To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature
and human beings are created by God.
•To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and
scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
•To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal
responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
•To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life. "
A Curious Connection....
and Senator Fair would have us believe that his suggestion to 'critically analyze'
evolution has nothing to do with intelligent design, the discovery institute, or
religion....it's all about improving the quality of science education!!!
"critical analysis has nothing to do with intelligent design, the Discovery
Institute, or religion....." (Feb 13, 2006)
Major Cases in 2005:
- On Nov. 8, the Kansas board adopted state science standards containing the
harshest criticism of evolution in the nation. The standards pointedly cast
doubt on Darwin's theory that all life on Earth shares common ancestry and
developed through the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection.
In an even bolder step that drew international derision, the board redefined
science as a discipline not limited to observations in the natural world and
opened the door to supernatural explanations.
Major Cases in 2005:
- On Nov. 8, the Kansas board adopted state science standards containing the
harshest criticism of evolution in the nation. The standards pointedly cast
doubt on Darwin's theory that all life on Earth shares common ancestry and
developed through the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection.
In an even bolder step that drew international derision, the board redefined
science as a discipline not limited to observations in the natural world and
opened the door to supernatural explanations.
- In October 2004, the Dover Area School Board voted to add a mention of
intelligent design to its ninth-grade biology curriculum. Also required that
teachers read the following disclaimer in class:
Major Cases in 2005:
- "The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about
Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of
which evolution is a part."
"Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new
evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for
which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation
that unifies a broad range of observations."
"Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from
Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available in the
library along with other resources for students who might be interested in
gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves."
"With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.
The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students
and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses
upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based
assessments."
Major Cases in 2005:
Several parents than sued the School Board on the grounds that this violates
the establishment clause of the Constitution.
Tammy Kitzmiller
Major Cases in 2005:
Several parents than sued the School Board on the grounds that this violates
the establishment clause of the Constitution.
Jones decried the “breathtaking inanity” of the Dover
policy and accused several board members of lying to
conceal their true motive, which he said was to promote
religion.
A six-week trial over the issue yielded “overwhelming
evidence” establishing that intelligent design “is a
religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and
not a scientific theory,” said Jones, a Republican and a
churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years
ago.
Major Cases in 2005:
Several parents than sued the School Board on the grounds that this violates
the establishment clause of the Constitution.
The disclaimer, he said, "singles out the theory of
evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status
in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its
validity without scientific justification, presents students
with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific
theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as
though it were a science resource and instructs
students to forgo scientific inquiry in the public school
classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction
elsewhere."
From Dr. Barbara Forrest’s testimony, suggesting that “intelligent design”
is just “scientific creationism” in a new guise…
“The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the
Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question
of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist,
and thus religious, antecedents.
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their
presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in
general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is
overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a
divine creator. To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet
render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded
in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific
propositions.
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that
several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie
to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the
leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert
that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to
teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is
manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a
school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination
drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision
is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students,
parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its
resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants
from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or
disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.
We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions. Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil
rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability
with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’
attorneys’ services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.” - conclusion of Jones’s decision.
Further embarrassments to out lovely state….
Newswatch Host David Stanton: What do you think
about the idea of teaching alternatives to Darwin's
Theory of Evolution in public schools, for instance
Intelligent Design?
Gov. Sanford: I have no problem with it.
Stanton: Do you think it should be done that way?
Rather than just teaching evolution?
Gov. Sanford: Well I think that it's just, and science
is more and more documenting this, is that there are
real "chinks" in the armor of evolution being the only
way we came about. The idea of there being a,
you know, a little mud hole and two mosquitoes
get together and the next thing you know you
have a human being... is completely at odds
with, you know, one of the laws of
thermodynamics which is the law of, of ... in
essence, destruction.
Recent Developments in SC:
Republican candidate for Superintendent of Ed - 2006
"Clearly, the theory of the politically-correct minority has been
allowed to dominate our classrooms to the point where not only is
Karen Floyd, evolution being taught as a scientific truth, but the public address
Republican system cannot be used to say a prayer for the safety of athletes
before a football game - this is wrong.
We must bring our children into the 21st century, where the
existence of intelligence behind the creation is not only the belief
of the vast majority of our citizens, and always has been, but is
quickly becoming the viewpoint of many prominent scientists. We
should openly discuss the theory of Intelligent Design with our
children as well. Public schools have an obligation to present
these competing theories without bias or prejudice or favor."
- from her article on the SC PIE website.
Recent Developments in SC:
Republican candidate for Lt. Gov - 2006
Lieutenant governor candidate Dr. Henry Jordan says science does not support
Darwin's theory that man evolved from monkeys and that public school students
should learn intelligent design along with evolution.
"I think everything ought to be taught ... and let people decide for themselves.
There is no science to support trans-species changes, in other words, a monkey
becoming a man," the Republican said in an interview Monday with The
Associated Press.
"A bunch of amoebas didn't get together and design all this," Jordan said,
referring to the human body. "We'd be operating on people ... looking at their
hearts, their liver and their lungs, I'd tell the techs, 'Can you believe those little
amoebas figured all this out?'
"I mean you've got to be stupid to believe in evolution, I mean really," he said.
The Post and Courier, May 2, 2006
2008:
Fair introduced Senate Bill 1386 "The State Board of
Education, superintendents of public school districts, and
public school administrators may not prohibit a teacher in a
public school of this State from helping his students
understand, analyze, critique, and review the scientific
strengths and weaknesses of biological and chemical
evolution in an objective manner. This act does not
condone the promotion of religious or nonreligious
doctrine, the promotion of discrimination for or against a
particular set of religious beliefs or nonreligious beliefs, or
the promotion of discrimination for or against religion or
nonreligion.“ – died in committee
2009:
Fair introduced Senate Bill 873: “The State Board of
Education shall examine all curriculum in use in this State
that purports to teach students about the origins of
mankind to determine whether the curriculum maintains
neutrality toward religion, favoring neither one religion over
other religions, nor religion over non-religion, including
atheism. Related to non-religion, the examination must
include a review as to whether the curriculum contains a
sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to
religion, thus preferring those who believe in no religion
over those who hold religious beliefs. The duty to review
curriculum imposed by this section is continuing and must
reoccur periodically after the initial review in order to
assure compliance with this section.” – will be considered
in 2010.
2009:
Fair introduced Senate Bill 875: “Teachers must be
permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique,
and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths
and weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to
the course. ... School governing authorities including, but
not limited to, school and district superintendents,
principals, and administrators, may not prohibit a teacher
in a public school in this State from helping students
understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective
manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing
scientific theories pertinent to the course” – will be
considered in 2010… referred to as the “academic
freedom approach”, modeled (nearly verbatim) after bills in
Louisiana and Kentucky.
South Carolinians for Science Education
http://www.sc-scied.org
National Center for Science Education
http://ncse.com/