Intelligent Design Officially Vanishes In Dover, PA
It’s officially over — basically declared as ancient history…happening so swiftly you’d swear it happened by some kind of… intelligent design:
DOVER, Pa. — Dover’s much-maligned school policy of presenting “intelligent design” as an alternative to evolution was officially relegated to the history books Tuesday night.On a voice vote, and with no discussion beforehand, the newly elected Dover Area School Board unanimously rescinded the policy. Two weeks earlier, a judge ruled the policy unconstitutional.
And so it vanishes…just as the school board that instituted it vanished (helped along by voters) and the requirement to raise the concept in classrooms vanished (helped along by the court). More from the Washington Post:
Dover biology teacher Jennifer Miller was relieved Tuesday night to know the policy was officially off the books.“I will feel comfortable again teaching what I’d always felt comfortable teaching,” she after the meeting, attended by a crowd of about 100 people.
School board members declined to comment after the vote.
Most of the previous board members who had defended the policy were ousted in the November election, replaced by candidates who pledged to eliminate the policy.
Policy defenders had said they were trying to improve science education by exposing students to alternatives with the policy. But the judge said the board’s real purpose was “to promote religion in the public school classroom,” and said intelligent design could not be taught as an alternative to evolution in biology classes.
But is this the end of this concept? The judge in effect said: “No dice. This is creationism and an attempt to bring the Bible into the classrooms.” However, ntelligent design’s proponents show no signs whatsoever of being ready to abandon their campaign to get the concept in schools so it could emerge in a new incarnation, as the Cincinnati Post notes:
The supporters of intelligent design are persistent, though, and this much-watched Pennsylvania case that was decided recently will not be the end of it….Intelligent design holds that life is so complex that it must have been designed by some superintelligent force or being. As science, the proposition has the drawback of being unable to be tested or replicated in any meaningful way. And, according to a recent New York Times report, the intelligent-design movement may be running out of steam, having failed to attract academic support or peer-reviewed papers. And many leading theologians and religious scholars see no conflict between their faith and evolution.
Just as creationism mutated into intelligent design, many observers believe intelligent design will return in a new guise, perhaps as something called sudden-emergence theory. Creationism, thus, is changing in response to its environment; it is, in a sense, evolving in a Darwinian sort of way.
In other words, this merely may be a time out in the heated debate and frenzied efforts on both sides to put or keep it out of the classroom. But the debate and frenzied efforts will begin again, real soon…
opinions powered by SendLove.to
6 Responses to “Intelligent Design Officially Vanishes In Dover, PA”
No, that’s exactly what Judge Jones didn’t say. He said that science classrooms are for science and that ID isn’t science. He did not say ID is creationism (although it is religion) and he did not say religion can’t be in the classroom, just not in the science classroom.
The false overgeneralization you use is exactly the same false overgeneralization that the Bible-thumpers are using to oppose the decision.
Am I misreading this source story for my original post on it:
But Judge Jones, an appointee of President George W. Bush, ruled that the board was trying to mask religious teaching in the guise of science. He used unusually strong language for a federal judge, going so far as to excoriate some members of the school board for lying.
“We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause,” Jones wrote.
“Repeatedly in this trial, plaintiff’s scientific experts testified that 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,” the judge added.
Doesn’t he say “classroom”? And where were all the news agency reports making this distinction you note. They didn’t say it was only saying not in science classrooms. It was in a classroom. Sorry you feel I made a false overgeneralization.
Here’s the lead from the LA Times story. You should contact the paper immediately and tell them they got it all wrong:
A federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled today that it is unconstitutional to compel teachers there to present “intelligent design” as an alternative explanation to evolution because it amounts to establishing religion in public schools.
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III wrote that the Dover, Pa. school board cannot require teachers “to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution” or “refer to a religious, alternative theory known as I.D.”
Next time I’ll have to read the lead paragraphs of the stories and the body of them a bit more carefully, I guess…
We haven’t heard the last of this.
Red state America will be whisked into a froth over whether or not we owe our existence to science or to God.
Here’s a typical question you’ll be hearing more about:
“Who is better suited to shape your children’s character in the classroom — her teacher or a Federal judge?”
Make no mistake. These people will be back.
That is a question I expect to hear. Here’s the response I, and I hope many others, will ask in return:
“Who is better suited to shape your children’s science education – her science teacher or a school board focusing on religious beliefs instead of science?”
The fact is science teachers are not clamoring to teach ID and being held back by school boards. Science teachers are being forced by school boards to teach this anti-scientific “theory”.
Here’s a more succinct version of your reply:
“To stay ahead in the modern global economy, which discipline is more important — science or religion?”
Another potential reply, more directly to the point:
“Who is supposed to shape your children’s character – her parents or her teachers?”