The class is expected to become familiar with the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. I browsed through some very old posts on this forum but didn't see a ton of information on it (though there was some good stuff). I guess this post is just to get people's opinions on the case. At this point, I'm almost offended by how stupidly some of the opposition handled the situation.
For instance, one of the main things the school board did was require this to be read to students once during their education:
The response, according to Wikipedia, was: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 is still being 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 for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
As is true with 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.
Among the things I found childish on the ACLU side was the fact they thought the situation was Orwellian. Maybe I'm blind in my thinking, but I read the term "Open-minded" and the some genuine effort to get students thinking outside of what they are taught in class. Why in the world wouldn't a 'liberties' group want students to be told to think for themselves! That isn't Orwellian at all! Its the exact opposite. Granted they weren't offered a ton of information, but we can see exactly why later on in the same list of complaints: the ACLU and the resigned board members felt that the only alternative was a religious answer and thus it was a violation of first amendment rights. Even if that were true, the ruling was therefor in favor of an atheistic belief system, and thus established a religion as the law of the land (secularism) instead of allowing students to have more options taught to them.The three school board members who voted against it resigned in protest, and science teachers in the district refused to read the statement to their ninth-grade students, citing the Pennsylvania code of education, which states that teachers cannot present information they believe to be false. Instead, the statement was read to students by a school administrator.
The school board's statement asserting that there are "gaps" in evolution and that it specifically is a theory "not a fact" singled out evolution, implying it is just a hunch, without explaining that the same applies to any other scientific theory. The reference to Of Pandas and People and presentation of intelligent design as an alternative "explanation of the origins of life" presented it as though it were a scientific explanation, in contrast to the way that evolution was described. Encouraging students to "keep an open mind" about alternatives without offering an alternative scientific explanation implied an invitation to meditate on a religious view, endorsing the religious view a similar way to the disclaimer found to be unconstitutional in the Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education case. The school board claimed the statement does not teach intelligent design and simply makes students aware of its existence as an alternative to evolution, but no such statements were made about other subjects. As part of the presentation, the administrators stated that "there will be no other discussion of the issue and your teachers will not answer questions on the issue", giving intelligent design a position not applied to scientific topics.[10] The board denied intelligent design is "religion in disguise," despite being represented in court by the Thomas More Law Center, a conservative Christian not-for-profit law center that uses litigation to promote "the religious freedom of Christians and time-honored family values". Its stated purpose is "...to be the sword and shield for people of faith".
In addition, I have no idea what the science teachers were referring to when they said that they 'couldn't teach information that is false'. I didn't see anything 'false' in that statement.
Anyway... just thought I'd ask what people thought about it. I for one think it is much more an issue of religious liberty than of 'protecting' people from 'religious' ideas.
