By Jon Hurdle
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A Pennsylvania school district on Wednesday rejected charges that plans to include references to an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution in high school biology classes would be illegal. The Dover Area School District near Harrisburg is the first in the United States to introduce "Intelligent Design," a theory that the natural world is so complex it must have been made by an intelligent being, rather than occurring by chance, as held by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
The district was sued by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State on Dec. 14 over plans to teach the theory starting next week. The lawsuit is the first to challenge the teaching of Intelligent Design, which the groups say violates the Constitutional separation of church and state.
The civil rights groups argued that "Intelligent Design" is a thinly veiled version of creationism -- the belief that the earth was made by God. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1980s that teaching creationism in public schools would violate the constitutional separation of church and state.
On Jan. 13, teachers will be required to read a statement saying that Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view, and that if students want to read more about it, they can read a book called "Of Pandas and People" which they can find in the school library.
Lawyers for the school board said that neither creationism nor "Intelligent Design" will be taught to students, and that no religious beliefs will be taught.
Intelligent Comment by M. L.:
Intelligent design presupposes that complexity plus existence equals God. A more valid argument would be that complexity plus existence equals a complex existence. But I don’t suppose reason or logic have much play in this particular argument.
4 comments:
M.L.,
Perhaps you miss the point - there is a distiction between religion and science but one does not exclude the other - in fact, they compliment each other. Science explains how, religion explains why.
Intelligent design is merely an explaination for why things are the way they are. As such, it is fully justified to include ID in a science text.
"Science explains how, religion explains why." Nope. Again, religion proves (the operative work) nothing concrete. It is all faith/fear driven. Level headed, rational thinking is replaced by irrational logic to appease the inner fear of the "unknown."
Let me see if I get this, "Science explains how, religion explains why," is that how it goes? Hmmmm, nope. No logic in that statement. Religion provides no "why." Rather, it looks to appease the fear of the unknown with "feel good" rationality that is anything but rational. Better to think that there is someone who is so much better than us, so much greater than us, that is intricately involved in every aspect of each individual's life than to accept the concrete science of evolution for fear of pissing off that greater being and thereby threatening one's chances to enter the hereafter. Intelligent design is an insult to the intelligent mind.
What a good term: "feel good rationality. Actually, I think that captures Christianity and most religions, at least until we can prove otherwise.
Post a Comment