'Intelligent Design' Debate Underway

[Brother Adam]

Monday, September 26, 2005

HARRISBURG, Pa. — "Intelligent design" (search) is a religious theory that was inserted in a school district's curriculum with no concern for whether it had scientific underpinnings, a lawyer told a federal judge Monday as a landmark trial got under way.

"They did everything you would do if you wanted to incorporate a religious point of view in science class and cared nothing about its scientific validity," said Eric Rothschild, an attorney representing eight families who are challenging the decision of the Dover Area School District.

But in his opening statement, the school district's attorney defended Dover's policy of requiring ninth-grade students to hear a brief statement about intelligent design before biology classes on evolution.

"This case is about free inquiry in education, not about a religious agenda," argued Patrick Gillen of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich. "Dover's modest curriculum change embodies the essence of liberal education." The center, which lobbies for what it sees as the religious freedom of Christians, is defending the school district.

Eighty years after the Scopes Monkey Trial (search), the opening of the trial in federal court marked the latest legal chapter in the debate over the teaching of evolution (search) in public school.

ADVERTISEMENTS


The eight families argue that the district policy violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

About 75 spectators crowded the courtroom of U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III for the start of the non-jury trial. But the scene outside the courthouse was business as usual except for a lone woman reading the Bible.

Arguing that intelligent design is a religious theory, not science, Rothschild said he would show that the language in the school district's own policy made clear its religious intent.

Dover is believed to be the first school system in the nation to require students be exposed to the intelligent design concept, under a policy adopted by a 6-3 vote in October 2004.

It requires teachers to read a statement that says intelligent design differs from Darwin's view and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook, "Of Pandas and People," for more information.

Intelligent design, a concept some scholars have advanced over the past 15 years, holds that Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms. It implies that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force.

Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism — a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation — camouflaged in scientific language, and it does not belong in a science curriculum.

Brown University professor Kenneth Miller, the first witness called by the plaintiffs, said pieces of the theory of evolution are subject to debate, such as where gender comes from, but told the court: "There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory."

On the other hand, he said, "Intelligent design is not a testable theory in any sense and as such it is not accepted by the scientific community."

Miller also challenged the accuracy of "Of Pandas and People" and said it almost entirely omits any discussion of what causes extinction. If nearly all original species are extinct, he said, the intelligent design creator was not very intelligent.

The history of evolution litigation dates back to the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, in which Tennessee biology teacher John T. Scopes was fined $100 for violating a state law that forbade teaching evolution. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed his conviction on the narrow ground that only a jury trial could impose a fine exceeding $50, and the law was repealed in 1967.

In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned an Arkansas state law banning the teaching of evolution. And in 1987, it ruled that states may not require public schools to balance evolution lessons by teaching creationism.

The clash over intelligent-design is evident far beyond this rural district of about 3,500 students 20 miles south of Harrisburg. President Bush has weighed in, saying schools should present both concepts when teaching about the origins of life.

In August, the Kansas Board of Education gave preliminary approval to science standards that allow intelligent design-style alternatives to be discussed alongside evolution.

Richard Thompson, the Thomas More center's president and chief counsel, said Dover's policy takes a modest approach.

"All the Dover school board did was allow students to get a glimpse of a controversy that is really boiling over in the scientific community," Thompson said.

[jezic]

most proponents of intelligent design (at least the ones that i have heard of.) nearly entirely deny the religious aspects.

It is strange for some lawyer to try and claim otherwise. .......

[CatholicAndFanatical]

I hear about this almost everyday from my atheist co workers. I havent read much on this but according to them the people trying to use Intelligent Design shows no scientific proof of their reasoning behind it.

ugh, sometimes I wish I had my own office :ugh:

[heavenseeker]

dude intelligent design is the same thing as creation you started a new thread for nothing

Edited September 26, 2005 by heavenseeker

[hierochloe]

[quote name='heavenseeker' date='Sep 26 2005, 04:49 PM']dude intelligent design is the same thing as creation you started a new thread for nothing
[right][snapback]738261[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Actually this pertains to its application in the classroom and whether it's approriate in a science curriculum.

[heavenseeker]

still the same thing

[hierochloe]

Intelligent design may be the same thing as creation to you, but the thread wasn't started for nothing imho. I personally prefer it when people don't spam up a thread (and i'm one of the biggest culprits ) with aspects of topic that could warrant a seperate discussion. But now i'm doing it again so I'll shut up about it.

[Aloysius]

no. creationism should be discussed on theological and philosophical terms. this should be discussed on terms of whether through the strict scientific method we can actually present a theory that God somehow designed the world.

it doesn't really have a place in the science classroom. it should be taught as some sort of philosophy curriculum or religious studies curriculum (of course we don't have those in public schools ) but science as it was born in the heart of rational western Christendom uses only observable scientific facts.

I don't know, I sympathize with both sides though.

[heavenseeker]

[quote name='hierochloe' date='Sep 26 2005, 05:20 PM']imho
[right][snapback]738299[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
because i dont know what that means ill just pretend it wasnt in there.

if all intelligent design is the classroom subject name for creation then yes it is the same thing.

[hierochloe]

Imho = in my humble opinion. :

[heavenseeker]

ok

[curtins]

wow I just had a big debate with my mom about this cause its all ive been hearing at school for the last month:

I saw this:

They tell at least a bit about creation aka ID but obviously theyre gonna focus on evolution cause thats more scientific but thats fine. But they should mention creation aka ID and telll kids to draw their own conclusions. Creation aka ID is not science. Its religion, theology, philosophy etc etc. I think its to lower it to call it science. It should not be called science because it is not science.

[Socrates]

[quote name='curtins' date='Sep 26 2005, 06:38 PM']wow I just had a big debate with my mom about this cause its all ive been hearing at school for the last month:

I saw this:

They tell at least a bit about creation aka ID but obviously theyre gonna focus on evolution cause thats more scientific but thats fine. But they should mention creation aka ID and telll kids to draw their own conclusions. Creation aka ID is not science. Its religion, theology, philosophy etc etc. I think its to lower it to call it science. It should not be called science because it is not science.
[right][snapback]738371[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Intelligent Design is not actually the same as literal Genesis Six-Day Creationism. It generally accepts evolution, but says that there's intelligent design behind it. It merely states that completely blind chance cannot be responsible for everything in nature.

This is no less "scientific" than the (rather implausible) Darwinistic theory that all living creatures came about through purely random chance processes. (Which is itself a philosophical premise rather than a scientific fact.)

[curtins]

does darwinsim say that it all happened randomly by chance? or does it just say that things evolved- not going into the area of the very begining

[Socrates]

[quote name='curtins' date='Sep 26 2005, 06:58 PM']does darwinsim say that it all happened randomly by chance? or does it just say that things evolved- not going into the area of the very begining
[right][snapback]738390[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Darwinism holds that new species are formed by random mutations in a prior existing species. Those with mutations that are beneficial to the survival of the organism survive, and those with harmful mutations die out.

Yes it does say the mutations are purely by chance, and not directed by any intelligence.