NationStates Jolt Archive


Main I.D text is just edited creationism text

The Cat-Tribe
08-10-2005, 18:07
Comment: Doh! Those not-so-sneaky creationists (*cough* I mean intelligent design advocates) shoot themselves in the foot.

Text originally referred to creationism
Biology book revised after Supreme Court ruling

Friday, October 7, 2005; Posted: 6:13 a.m. EDT (10:13 GMT)

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Early drafts of a student biology text contained references to creationism before they were replaced with the term "intelligent design," a witness testified Wednesday.

Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University, took the witness stand in a landmark trial over a school system's use of the book "Of Pandas and People."

The text, written in 1987, was revised after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that June that states could not require schools to balance evolution with creationism in the classroom, Forrest said.

She reviewed drafts of the textbook as a witness for eight families who are trying to have the intelligent design concept removed from the Dover Area School District's biology curriculum.

The families contend that teaching intelligent design effectively promotes the Bible's view of creation, violating the separation of church and state.

Intelligent design holds that life on Earth is so complex that it must have been the product of some higher force. Opponents of the concept say intelligent design is simply creationism stripped of overt religious references.

Forrest outlined a chart of how many times the term "creation" was mentioned in the early drafts versus how many times the term "design" was mentioned in the published edition.

"They are virtually synonymous," she said.

Under the policy approved by Dover's school board in October 2004, students must hear a brief statement about intelligent design before classes on evolution.

The statement says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps."

Forrest also said that intelligent-design proponents have freely acknowledged that their cause is a religious one.

She cited a document from the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that represents intelligent-design scholars, that says one of its goals is "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

Under cross-examination by school board lawyer Richard Thompson, Forrest acknowledged that she had no evidence that board members who voted for the curriculum change had either seen or heard of the Discovery Institute document.

The trial began September 26 and is expected to last five weeks.
Ph33rdom
08-10-2005, 18:12
You know, I don't go around defending creationism nor ID, but you are showing us a single witness testimony in a 5 week trial, it's like a single day of coverage of the Jackson trial ~ it's sensationalism, not news. ;)
New Sans
08-10-2005, 18:33
You know, I don't go around defending creationism nor ID, but you are showing us a single witness testimony in a 5 week trial, it's like a single day of coverage of the Jackson trial ~ it's sensationalism, not news. ;)

Holy crap religion and Micheal Jackson have something in common! :eek:
Tekania
09-10-2005, 01:04
-snip-

Could care less about the issue myself... But personally, this makes me more sick. And is yet another reason why the Schools, and Courts need to be reformed majorly.
New Watenho
09-10-2005, 01:13
Whoops. Slipped up there. Quick, someone make sure everyone in the country knows this information, before it gets ignored.
[NS]Simonist
09-10-2005, 01:13
I still say it should be the students' choice once it's at a high school (and higher) level. Worked well for me -- no objections here to how it was all handled.
CSW
09-10-2005, 01:17
Simonist']I still say it should be the students' choice once it's at a high school (and higher) level. Worked well for me -- no objections here to how it was all handled.
A choice? So shall we let children decide if they want to learn calculus or some crackpot theory about how to pray to find the area under a curve?
[NS]Simonist
09-10-2005, 01:19
A choice? So shall we let children decide if they want to learn calculus or some crackpot theory about how to pray to find the area under a curve?
I'd certainly go for that. But how about, rather than twisting my words, you try to see what I was actually getting to -- a fairly well-balanced understanding of BOTH ideas :rolleyes:
Gymoor II The Return
09-10-2005, 01:21
Holy crap religion and Micheal Jackson have something in common! :eek:

Oh, it would be sooooooooo easy to make an imflammatory joke here. :D
The Nazz
09-10-2005, 01:26
Holy shit. I've only been following this case from a distance, but I just realized that the expert witness mentioned there was my Philosophy professor for two classes while I did my undergraduate work at Southeastern. Small fucking world.

She was a hardass for a teacher, too. I loved her classes, but man was she a hardass.
CSW
09-10-2005, 01:27
Simonist']I'd certainly go for that. But how about, rather than twisting my words, you try to see what I was actually getting to -- a fairly well-balanced understanding of BOTH ideas :rolleyes:
I understand it rather well. ID isn't science. As such, it has no place in the class room.
Undelia
09-10-2005, 01:29
I understand it rather well. ID isn't science. As such, it has no place in a science class room.
Correction in bold.
[NS]Simonist
09-10-2005, 01:32
I understand it rather well. ID isn't science. As such, it has no place in the class room.
Oh ho ho, now here's a funny thing.....did I ever SAY I learned it in a science class?

You know what they say about assumptions.....
CthulhuFhtagn
09-10-2005, 01:32
Simonist']I'd certainly go for that. But how about, rather than twisting my words, you try to see what I was actually getting to -- a fairly well-balanced understanding of BOTH ideas :rolleyes:
Okay, so we teach evolution. Then we point at ID and laugh. That's your well-balanced understanding there. Hell, it's probably weighted in favor of ID.
Isernsteorra
09-10-2005, 01:46
The statement says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps."


What gaps? Sure, there's the whole, 'where did the matter come from?' question, but then, where the heck did God come from? Silly people. I've met a lot of IDers and fundementalists, and all of them have said that Evolution has gaps, but when I ask them what gaps it has that the Scriptures do not, they clam right up.
Straughn
10-10-2005, 00:34
Oh, it would be sooooooooo easy to make an imflammatory joke here. :D
Go man, go!
*pours cereal on his head, slices a banana on top*
;)
Straughn
10-10-2005, 00:35
Holy shit. I've only been following this case from a distance, but I just realized that the expert witness mentioned there was my Philosophy professor for two classes while I did my undergraduate work at Southeastern. Small fucking world.

She was a hardass for a teacher, too. I loved her classes, but man was she a hardass.
That's awesome.
Tactical Grace
10-10-2005, 01:05
LOL, they're trying to squeeze God into 'gaps' before the inexorable juggernaut of science has sealed them? Sad. :rolleyes:

Let us not forget that this is the same logic that gave us a flat Earth at the centre of the Universe, and then viewed the moons of Jupiter as a threat.

Let's face it, religious doctrine has been getting sucker-punched by science for centuries. This is their last stand, and they know it.