http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/12....ap/index.html

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- The state American Civil Liberties Union plans to file a federal lawsuit Tuesday against a Pennsylvania school district that is requiring students to learn about alternatives to the theory of evolution.

The ACLU said its lawsuit will be the first to challenge whether public schools should teach "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by some higher power.

The Dover Area School District was believed to be the first in the nation to mandate intelligent design when it voted 6-3 in October in favor of including the concept in the science curriculum.

The ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have scheduled a news conference Tuesday to discuss the suit, which will be filed in U.S. District Court in Harrisburg, ACLU spokesman Paul Silva said Monday.

Neither Silva nor Joe Conn, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, would comment on the specifics of the complaint.

School superintendent Richard Nilsen had no comment Monday. Administrators have declined to comment on the mandate, which applies to ninth-grade biology classes at Dover High School, in rural south-central Pennsylvania.

School board member William Buckingham spearheaded the change as the leader of the board's curriculum committee. He has said that he proposed the change as a way of balancing evolution with competing theories that raised questions about its scientific validity.

At least one other district has recently become embroiled in federal litigation over teaching evolution. A federal judge in Georgia is considering the constitutionality of a suburban Atlanta district's decision to include a warning sticker about evolution in biology textbooks.

Last month, the Dover district issued a statement saying that state academic standards require the teaching of evolution, which holds that Earth is billions of years old and that life forms developed over millions of years.

But the statement also said Charles Darwin's theory "is still being tested as new evidence is discovered," and that intelligent design "is an explanation of the origins of life that differs from Darwin's view."

Additionally, district officials said they would monitor the lessons "to make sure no one is promoting but also not inhibiting religion."

The ACLU has said intelligent design is a more secular form of creationism, a Biblical-based view that credits the origin of species to God, and may violate the constitutional separation of church and state.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

I heard about the so-called "Intelligent Design" battle that is now taking place. It will certainly be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Here's an idea- why not present several possible "theories" as part of a science and ethics course- discuss evolution, various creation myths (by myth I mean an account or story that may well be true but cannot be quantifiably proven), etc.

As far as separation of church and state- that is not an issue- as long as a variety of diverse perspectives are explored objectively.

In fact, to not mention other perspectives could violate the civil liberties of people who subscribe to those views. Incidentally, evolution is no more provable than creation- ultimately there are unanswerable questions that people have to decide for themselves.

I say open it to discussion without saying this perspective is right and those are all wrong- because honestly no one knows for sure or can prove which perspective is correct. I am open to the possibility that creation and evolution could both be true. Personally I have difficulty believing credibly that humanity "evolved" from apes, but as far as the concepts of natural selection, and survival of the fittest, and adaptation- they all seem to make perfect sense.

Why do people get so stubborn, intolerant and bent out of shape over things like this?

Let's talk about it, explore a variety of perspectives and let students decide for themselves...

:what_is_:

__________________
Peace,

John

My eBay World

My Librarything

MySpace

. . . .

John,

I can understand pushback about the evolved from apes thing. Though to me it makes perfect sense especially when you see that genetic science shows ape vs human DNA to be 99% matched. Then take into account fossil evidence like "Lucy" which looks like a tall ape.

Watching Jurassic Park or Discovery Channel... can you accept that birds came from Raptors and that amphibians were once fish? That one species of shark become a dozen? Or how about just that proto-man (Adam) became a black man, a yellow man, a white man? That is modern day evolution. Why can't it go back further?

How about dates? The Bible says 6000 years. Science says millions. What do you say? Some people say that it's not literal, that a year to GOd could be a million to us... there by rectifying the disparity. But once you accept that a year could be a million... then you are on a slippery slope to accepting many more things. It's a gateway arguement.

You raise some excellent questions and observations, Ezra. Another factor that is important to keep in mind is that we need to be very careful about presenting one theory or story over another as THE factual answer to how we got here.

The fact is, we don't know for sure and will never be able to prove conclusively one idea or another.

I think you agree with me on that.

About the evolution idea- I am onboard with most of it as I mentioned. I believe there is a lot of credence to what Darwin and others have proposed and backed up with fossil records, geologic studies, carbon-dating, etc. It is just too much of a leap for me, to say that human beings are descendents of animals- it does not make sense in many ways.

Creation, also, has scientific gaps, however, we need to recognize that the Creation myths (again myth meaning a story we believe to be true that we cannot scientifically prove), are stories written by humans in an effort to philosophically explain how we got here- similar to how the evolution and big bang theories attempt to scientifically explain how we got here.

If you look at many of the Creation myths of ancient cultures- whether it be the Epic of Gilgamesh, Babylonian myths, Incan, Mayan, native American myths, Asian creation myths, Egyptian creation myths, and those found in the Hebrew scriptures, you will find some remarkable similarities regarding certain details (such as the probable occurence of an ancient flood), and some interesting cultural variations in other aspects.

Ultimately, though we cannot indisputably prove any of the theories, myths or stories- scientific, philosophical or otherwise.

That is why, I think several of the most prominent theories and myths need to be presented as objectively as possible to students, then they need to decide for themselves what they believe.

__________________
Peace,

John

My eBay World

My Librarything

MySpace

. . . .

For all I know aliens put us all here as is. Science attempts to explain by putting together pieces of facts and seeing how those facts might create a complete picture. We'll never have a complete picture, granted, but the pieces are all factual. The conclusions change by the day. Meanwhile, the Bible dates the planet by adding up the ages of the characters in the book. That has no merit.

There used to be a lot less of us on this planet and I can certainly see how ancient myths or stories could get spread out from population centers to every corner of the earth. There most likely was a major flood at one point and each racial group had their own explainations for it. Just as in the Bible, each story no matter how fantastical most likely has a kernal of truth to it.

I say that it is detrimental to explain history with a religious text. You should explain to children that science is always moving forward and we know more today than we did yesterday. I think comparative religion is important to teach... but to mix fact and fiction... no good. You say evolution is not proven... but there is certainly a hell of a lot more proofs involved with that theory than the Bible which offers only faith as proof.

Plus, I have a serious bone to pick with the Church in this regard because back in the day of Galilao and Copernicus... you risked death as a heritic if you proved something scientifically that they disagreed with scripturally... it is against the interests of the Church for science to progress. Meanwhile, science is science... it seeks knowledge for the sake of knowledge... it does not seek to disprove the Bible. If the Bible is incorrect and by extension, God is incorrect... that's Christianity's problem, not sciences.

I could point to a story about aliens creating a zoo on earth... but just because a story exists with an alternate theory does not mean it merits side by side valuation with scientific theory.

Again some very astute observations, Ezra.

I would assert that science, just because it lines up facts in a certain way is any more reliable ultimately than philosophical truths.

As to the claims of ages of people mentioned in the Bible- that was never intended to be used to trace back the origins of humankind as some sort of historical record- just as Darwin himself would probably agree that his theory was not intended nor could it ever provide an indisputable account of how humankind originated- it is a theory not scientific fact.

Perhaps an ethics component could or should be added to science curriculum that acknowledges and allows for discussion of diverse perspectives on this issue without lifting up one theory or another as being the answer.

About what you mentioned regarding "the church"- clearly some really ignorant, terrible things have been done and said in the name of religion over the course of human history.

By comparison, some pretty bizarre claims have been made in the name of science and medicine. Just look at how medicine has been revolutionized in the past 100 or even 50 years with the advent of cellular models, anti-biotics, and a better, more accurate understanding of the human body and disease.

As far as the question of how we got here as humans, we need to approach the question with a sense of openness to dialogue and learning and with an eagerness to learn more.

I hear your skepticism about stories:

The fact is, however, many outstanding, accomplished scientists have observed that the world could not have begun without the work of a divine Creator- this includes the likes of Einstein, Stephen Hawking and others.

So there is a lot of support for the notion of Creation within the scientific community- you can't just glibbly write it off.

:what_is_:

__________________
Peace,

John

My eBay World

My Librarything

MySpace

. . . .

I see no problem with being a religious scientist.

I'm on board with your presenting all concepts at once and then letting the individual cherry pick what makes sense to them personally after having reviewed all schools of thought.

My quote for the day is:

The more we know, the less room there will be for magic (the supernatural).

I don't really see how evolution and the big bang contradict religion in anyway. Just because you can exactly predict the action of an incredibly impressive domino display with scientific principles doen't invalidate the beauty of the design of the display or mean that an intelligence didn't place the domin''s just so.

Ezra - watch out for this peacemover! Any second now he is going to dazzle and confuse your eyes with one of his fierce smileyface kung fu demonstrations. :razz:

John - don't take this wrong but you have a lousy internet poker face. There appears to be a direct relationship between the degree to which a topic gets under your skin and the number of emoticons you use per post.

I think it was a book called Forever Peace...

...by traveling at crazy speeds through space, the passengers would arrive at their destinations hundreds of years into the future... after many such travels the future was so radically different that the "old timers" from our present took off in a ship and blasted way far into the future and deep ito space to find a place of their own... due to mysterious techinal failures they needed to tur around... when they came back they found that they had exceeded the boundries of a celestial experiment. Earth, the solar system and basically our chunk of the universe was a petri dish. The being or beings who set the experiment in motion millions of years ago by seeding the primordial ooze called the whole thing off since having the participants in the experiment be aware of the experiment voided the whole business... about to simple wipe everything out and start fresh, the protagonists pleaded for their lives... the Being relented... but made a subtle change to reality... the value of pi was now an even 3.

Scientifically we can know everything there is to know... but for all we know we're just "God's" little experiment.

Seand and Ezra - you're piling on poor Peace. But I did love the emoticons comment. (rolling).

And Ezra beat me to the aliens remark - damn you computer.

I don't understand, Peace, why it offends you to think that you (and me and Seand and Ezra) all came from a bunch of apes in Borneo. I think that they sometimes act better than we do (we're the animals, here).

But, as Ezra pointed out (and I'll go farther), almost all life (from paramecia to humankind) share about 98% of our DNA.

That said (and joked), I don't mind these folks putting creationism into a Science and Ethics class (sort of socialogical look at science, perhaps). But to teach it as science, on a par with evolution, is really nuts.

__________________
“Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody.” - Jane Jacobs