School defends intelligent design

[Player-X]

School defends intelligent design
A school board being sued in a US court for questioning the theory of evolution has begun presenting its case. Pennsylvania's Dover Area school board requires science teachers to say that evolution is unproven, and to raise "intelligent design" as an alternative.

A biology professor and leading advocate of intelligent design told the court that evolution alone could not explain complex biological processes.

Michael Behe said he believed God was behind them.

Some parents are suing the school board, saying that intelligent design is a religious belief and should not be taught, because it violates the United States constitutional separation of church and state.

Darwin's 'gaps'

The Dover school board instructs its teachers to read a statement to 14-to-15-year-old students before classes on evolution, saying that Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact", and that there are "gaps in the theory".

Students are then referred to an intelligent design textbook for more information.

Intelligent design is being promoted in schools across more than 20 states in the US.

It holds that the development of life cannot be explained solely by evolution, and that the guiding hand of an intelligent force must have been at work.

Although it does not name God specifically, the theory has been adopted by some Christian groups, who promote it ahead of creationism, the literal interpretation of the biblical book of Genesis.

'Not a theory'

Prof Behe was the first witness called by the school board, after the dissenting parents presented their case.

He said evolution should still be taught, as "any well-educated student should understand it", but said it could not fully explain the biological complexities of life.

He said intelligent design questions whether life at the molecular level could have evolved through natural selection.

"That's the most poorly supported aspect of Darwin's theory," he told the federal court.

Prof Behe's stance is rejected by the faculty at the university where he works, and the scientific mainstream.

The head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science says that intelligent design "is not even a theory".

Intelligent design opponents invoke US constitution

Donald MacLeod
Tuesday October 18, 2005

The University of California at Berkeley is being sued for running a website for school teachers called Understanding Evolution.Anti-evolutionists claim that the site breaches the American constitution on the separation of church and state because it links to religious organisations which believe faith can be reconciled with Darwin's theory of evolution, reported the website Inside Higher Ed today.

The University of California is already under legal attack for its refusal to certify high school courses on creationism and "intelligent design" as meeting its entry requirements for admission.

Meanwhile, supporters of evolution are using the same first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" to combat the spread of creationism and intelligent design in schools.

In a landmark trial over the teaching of evolution, creationism and "intelligent design" in American schools, lawyers for the Dover area school board in Pennsylvania this week began presenting their case for making intelligent design part of the curriculum.

Michael Behe, a professor at Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, yesterday told the federal court in Harrisburg that intelligent design - which holds that life is so complex it must have had a creator - was based on science and was not a religious doctrine.

Eleven parents of students at a Pennsylvania high school are suing the Dover school board on the grounds that its new policy of introducing intelligent design in the classroom violates the US constitutional separation of church and state.

The federal trial over teaching theories of human origins, which has echoes of the famed Scopes Monkey trial of 1925, when lawyers squared off in a Tennessee courthouse over the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution, entered its fourth week.

The case marks the first time that teaching intelligent design has been challenged in court and is being closely watched in at least 30 states where similar initiatives to dilute the teaching of evolution are being considered.

Berkeley has responded to requests from schools for materials to explain evolution. The lawsuit has been brought by Jeanne Caldwell, a California parent whose husband, Larry, is a lawyer, an anti-evolution activist, and the founder of a group called Quality Science Education for All.

Mr Caldwell told Inside Higher Ed that by linking to religious groups' statements in favour of religion, Berkeley was "taking a position on evolution and attempting to persuade minor students to accept that position."

He said it was the "height of hypocrisy for this to be coming from people who claim that they are trying to keep religious instruction out of science class." He said links should have been included to religious groups offering non-evolution views.

Roy L. Caldwell, (no relation) a professor of integrative biology and director of the Museum of Paleontology at Berkeley, said the website was designed to help teachers - especially those who may feel pressure because of the current attacks on evolution - to explain the science behind evolution. The information about religious groups was strictly factual, he said.

Michael R. Smith, the assistant chancellor for legal affairs at Berkeley, said that the university would defend the lawsuit "with vigor and enthusiasm" and pointed out that the first amendment also enshrines the right to free speech.

Here's a heads up on the Darwin vs God case

[hushypushy]

didnt you already post this in your other thread.....?

and Player-X, please take a moment to think. your other thread was locked and moved away for a reason. I'll let you put the pieces together.

__________________
Dedicated to mediocrity and repetition since 1994.

2008 "How Not to Post" guide

[RF]

1) Player-X we are all fed up with your simple cut & paste news posts. Its lame, and you only add at max 5 words of your own thought to it. Frankly its spam even if some people find the news interesting.

2) Your other spam fest aka "In other news..." was removed because it was exactly that, spam.

3) This dosent prevent people from posting the occasional story, but we could get a news bot to spam the forums if we wanted the news headlines from every friggin website.

4) THIS topic was ALREADY closed and deleted, frankly its rude of you to open another thread so similar.

__________________

[_E_]

ooh pfft, what are you talking about ? You're not enforcing the rules, you're..zomg! Censorship!!!1onene1!1eleven!!!!1111