It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


California school sued over intelligent design

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 10:42 AM

I just find it alarming that people are attempting to sneak this into our student’s schools. If this isn't a blatant sneaky approach, I don't know what is. Actually, I would be for such ideals/theories discussed in a philosophy class, but make it a true philosophy class where ID is one of many topics covered. This just seems so shady to me.

From the article:

"Frazier Mountain High School in Lebec violated the separation of church and state while attempting to legitimize the theory of "intelligent design" by introducing it as a philosophy class taught by a minister's wife, according to the federal lawsuit filed by parents of 13 students."

Sneaky Sneaky - Give it up people...we are a diverse country and such ideals can't be taught in public schools, much less a science class (and now a class devoted to ID). My suggestion is to seek a religious school for your children and leave the diverse kids in public school alone!


[edited to add ex code -nygdan]

[edit on 12-1-2006 by Nygdan]

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 08:03 AM
Why is having it in a philosophy class sneaky? I can see rejecting it anyways, because modern Intelligent Design is perhaps too narrow to be taught in a high school philosophy class (though if it were 'from paley to behe' and such, that might be a 'big' enough subject). But why is it sneaky?

The entire class is focusing on intelligent design?

I'd like to see this woman's lesson plans.

Because the teacher has no scientific training, students are not provided with any critical analysis of this presentation

So? Its a philosophy class. Rational Empiricism is a philosophy, and it is also (roughly speaking anyways) science, but why shoudl that make it the supreme philosophy over which all other philosophies must be judged? Is Kierkegaard's thought invalid because there is no evidence of a god that makes us fear and tremble? The only qalifications for this woman to teach a high school elective shoudl be if she is or is not certified to teach in high school and that subject.

An initial course description sent to parents in December said it would examine "evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological, and Biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin's philosophy is not rock solid."

Hmm. That doesn't actually seem quite right. Where's the sense in having an entire class devoted to considering a particular portion of science from a single philosophical perspective?

Also, if its considering the biblical aspects, then its not, in the strictest sense, Intelligent Design, no? So basically, from that, this looks simply like a class in creationism.

I'd have to say that that shouldn't be permitted. Biblical Creationism is a religious interpretation, its religion. A particular religion shouldn't get an entire class devoted to it.

Imagine if there was a class in "Proofs for the Koran" and it had lessons like "The non-divinity of Jesus".

Classes started two days later with a class plan that relied solely on videos, not guest speakers.

I'd be interested to see if it is Kent Hovind's videos, or Ken Hamms.

from another source
Sharon Lemburg, says she wanted “to tell people about the ideas of Intelligent Design,” but that “Everything happened quickly. I had to have a syllabus overnight. I’m not an expert on this subject.” Lemburg is widely appreciated in the community and by this newspaper as the Lady Falcons’

This is not a good test case for teaching intelligent design as a non-science class, to say the least.

Wow, here is the tenative original syllabus, with markups and comments (in blue on that page) from the guy that got it.

new topics

log in