Thursday, January 12, 2006

No Freedom to Choose in Education

Again, borrowed from the Family Research Council.

Lebec, a small town in California, is named for a 19th century pioneer who died in a fight with a grizzly bear. Residents should not be surprised, then, to find themselves in the middle of another bear fight. When the local school board voted to allow a one-month course in Intelligent Design to be taught as an elective, and under the heading of philosophy, some dissatisfied parents called in Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and went to court. They are trying to block any teaching of Intelligent Design under the auspices of a public school. They oppose it even when students freely choose it. They oppose it even when it's labeled philosophy, not science. "It's scary," says teacher Sharon Lemburg, "I just want to teach. I'm not out for big publicity." It's interesting, isn't it, that liberals defended John T. Scopes in the name of academic freedom and his right to teach Darwin, but are willing to sue to silence Sharon Lemburg?

I find this particularly interested in light of the recent court decision in Dover, PA. In that case the issue was said to be that it was attached to a science class. If it had been attached to a humanities class, or philosophy class it wouldn't have been a problem (or so the detractors claimed). They also said that it wouldn't have been a problem if it had been an opt-in thing...So much for honesty.

7 Comments:

Blogger lloydletta said...

This California case is interesting - because the Discovery Institute (leading ID promoting organization) is also upset by the class - because the curriculum includes alot of Young Earth Creationism (YEC) - and the Discovery Institute likes to distance themselves from the YECs for political reasons.

The court cases on creationism in the public schools have said that creationism was inappropriate in public schools because it violated the Establishment clause in the first amendment - so the court cases weren't bases on whether the material was taught in a science class or not.

It seems that this California class violates the establishment clause in the same way.

11:38 AM, January 15, 2006  
Blogger Jeff said...

Thanks for the comment. I wasn't aware of those specifics about the California case.

IMO, ID proper is really science, but YECism is certainly Christian (because it appeals to Scripture as the only sound evidence for many of its claims).

6:46 AM, January 16, 2006  
Blogger Roger Yang said...

ID, I don't think is proper science. And yes, I have fought on the side that says it is.

I posted most of the case on pamphlets on why it is not science.

8:12 PM, February 15, 2006  
Blogger Jeff said...

Roger, do you mean that you argued for ID in a debate club situation? If so, I'd love to see a synopsis of the argument you used.

6:36 AM, February 16, 2006  
Blogger Roger Yang said...

It's on my website a ways down.
I can send you the pro side of the argument if you ask for it.

8:00 AM, February 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cool blog, interesting information... Keep it UP furniture store nj Health care facility diet pill 2002 lexus gs Phentermine puerto rico Creative cosmetics Parson's scholarship Lexapro negative side effects Interracial movie mammoth cock Fioricet info1.gif Highland hills golf in highland township michigan Bikini dare free preview plum latinas Protonix medicine for acid reflux jewish yankees baseball cards http://www.adult-movies-0.info/fart-cum.html Incorporating online in nc Make word bingo card Allergy dog treat danger signs for a kitchen funniest baseball team names

11:10 AM, February 06, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where did you find it? Interesting read » »

6:22 AM, February 15, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home