California high school sued over class discussing ‘intelligent design’
Posted on January 11, 2006
From an article in SFGate:
A rural high school teaching a religion-based alternative to evolution was sued Tuesday by a group of parents who said the class should be stopped because it violates the U.S. Constitution.
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 philosophy taught by a minister’s wife, according to the U.S. District Court suit filed by parents of 13 students.
“The course was designed to advance religious theories on the origins of life, including creationism and its offshoot, ‘intelligent design,’” the suit said. “Because the teacher has no scientific training, students are not provided with any critical analysis of this presentation.”
The suit was filed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which successfully blocked Dover, Pa., schools last month from using science courses to advance the theory that living things are so complex they must have been designed by a higher being.
Superintendent John Wight said last week that the class, “Philosophy of Design,” was not being taught as science and was an opportunity for students to debate the controversial issue.
Fifteen students were enrolled in the class in Lebec, a town of 1,285 in the Tehachapi mountains between the agricultural Central Valley and Los Angeles, about 75 miles south.
The class is taught by social studies teacher Sharon Lemburg, who is married to an Assembly of God pastor.
“This is clearly intended to introduce religion into a public school,” said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
What is the problem? It is being taught by a Social Studies teacher and discussed in the venue of philosophy. This is exactly what they said it could be taught as, and they claimed it was only a problem taught in a science class along side Human Evolution; which has never been proved.
Look, it has been decided that the bible and religion can in fact be taught in Public schools in a historic or philosophical context. This is the same state in which the 9th circus said parents do not have the right to have a say in what content is being taught to their children in public schools. They also decided it was fine to make children dress up, and take names while reading the Quran and preying to Allah! Someone explain to me how this is not discrimination against Christianity? Notice they make an issue that the teacher’s husband is a Minister. I am not Christian and I am sick of the whole thing.
First there is no separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution. I challenge you to find it anywhere in the Constitution. They always refer to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. What the first Amendment says is congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. This was later spread to the State Government. Make no law establishing religion does not mean cannot talk about religion, or have religious symbols in government. They always forget the second half of that sentence or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I think the courts have definitely restricted the free exercise thereof, and these groups have the goal of prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and for that reason I am against it, and them.
Crossposted from The Uncooperative Blogger
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Church And State, News
Trackback URL
Comments
27 Responses to “California high school sued over class discussing ‘intelligent design’”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Rather than rant blindly, make an effort to apprise yourself of the entirety of the situation before declaring the whole thing unfair to the godders.
This is not a course *about* ID creationism; it is a course that advocates for six-day creation and teaches out of the Bible. The course called for 19 creation-based videos. Re-read this paragraph if you need to.
Teaching creationism in public schools was declared unconstitutional in 1987 (Edwards v. Aguillard) and this holds true whether the arena is biology class, a philosophy course, home ec, or gym class. It’s that simple.
But don’t trust me, check out the course description:
“This class will take a close look at evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological, and Biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin’s philosophy is not rock solid. Physical and chemical evidence will be presented suggesting the earth is thousands of years old, not billions.”
Now that’s an objective, non-partisan approach, eh? (I always thought Darwin was a scientist, not a philosopher, but hey, since we’re just making stuff up as we go, it’s all good, right?)
The teacher is, first and foremost, not a social-studies teacher but a special education teacher (how apt). She also has no training in either science or philosophy. Is her being married to a Christian minister relevant? Of course. Only someone willfully wearing blinders or endorsing illegal creation teaching would pooh-pooh this detail; it’s no secret where the teacher’s syllabus was coming from.
In short, this was nothing more than another effort on the part of Christians to insinuate creationism into public schools. They failed in Dover last month, so their latest transparent pro-creation tactic is to aim for a philosophy class instead of a science class, thinking people wouldn’t notice that they were still trying to teach creationism. You are a testament to the fact that some people are, in fact, not aware of the ruse despite superfically following this issue, but people in the right places are watching for this kind of buncombe.
Anyway, not only is the lawsuit valid, but this is an instance that fairly screamed for one. These wingnuts are shameless in their unyielding efforts to do exactly what the Supreme Court (a Reagan court, by the way) told them they could not, and cannot. Complaining the the SCOTUS has never properly interpreted the First Amendment, as some are wont to do, is frivolous, spurious and trivial. Plain wrong, in other words.
Sources:
http://www.mountainenterprise.com/IntellDesign-stories/060106-holiday_mtg.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/13568701.htm
Whether its evolution or Creation, public school is un-Constitutional itself, and a waste of tax dollars. These court cases and half of the debates on this very website would go away.
I’m a Christian studying to be a pastor, and I take issue with the 6 day theory. Not that I’m saying its not true, but that there are concerns. Like the fact that Creation science claims that each day of Creation in Genesis is a literal 24 hour day. But we measure literal days like that by the sun, and God did not create the sun until day four. The word day in the Bible is from the Hebrew Yom~, and that word only has 23 different meanings in the English language.
However, Where’s My Haldol’s notion that Christians are pulling out everything short of espionage to get Creation into pubic school is an attempt to flatter the secular science arena. Scientists can’t agree on half of what is taught as evolution themselves, and squabble like siblings over their research. Its amazing how many secular scientists think evolution is a bunch of bunk. Science Against Evolution is a great non-Christian group that has been disproving evolution for a while.
But at any rate, the proper thing to do is to repave the DEP and let parents decide for themselves what education is right for their kids. From a Christian perspective, believing the earth is billions of years old (I don’t) did nothing to harm my relationship with Jesus. Let the evolutionist pigs return from the vomit from wence they came.
Believing in evolution requires as much faith as believing in a higher being. So if the theory of evolution requires faith, doesn’t it technically qualify as a form of religion?
“Scientists can’t agree on half of what is taught as evolution themselves, and squabble like siblings over their research. Its amazing how many secular scientists think evolution is a bunch of bunk.”
Excellent. You dismiss the idea that Christians don’t prevaricate, confabulate and connive in an effort to do away with evolution, and then you turn around and do the same thing. Claiming that there are internal battles over the validity of evolution (scientists have healthy debates over precise mechanisms, but not about the fact that evolution itself occurs), that a significant number of credible scientists don’t believe in evolution, and that anyone has “disproven” evolution is a combination of wishful thinking and lies. Feel free to lend support to these wild statements.
“Believing in evolution requires as much faith as believing in a higher being. So if the theory of evolution requires faith, doesn’t it technically qualify as a form of religion?”
No. This is a dumb, trite premise followed by an even dumber and more hackneyed conclusion. Only those who haven’t studied evolution — most of whom are religious types who refuse to do so owing to their dislike of evolution’s implications — think that it requires “faith.” If you believe evolution hasn’t been observed, documented and replicated, then you haven’t investigated the issue. Christians desperately try to lower evolution to the level of their own groundless belief system in an effort to level the playing field, but this is a peevish, puerile and failed tactic. Scientists don’t take things on “faith” - to do so is the antithesis of how they operate.
Where’s my Haldon?, there are many renowned mathemiticians who have calculated that the odds of all of Darwin’s theories of evolution being true are astronomically high. There are 5 different theories, if you recall. With these odds, it actually would take a great deal of faith to believe that his theories are categorically true and have no flaws and have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Again, I’m not saying that ID is the best alternative theory to be taught. I don’t know enough about it to make that claim. However, I know enough about evolution to understand that to teach it as the ONLY theory and as fact and indisputable does not do our childrens’ education any justice. And, it would ensure that only one side of a continuing debate is taught and that a certain belief system is shoved down peoples’ throats. I’ve heard of the ACLU suing schools who put a disclaimer in their evolution text-books and schools who require teachers to iterate to their students that this is not the only theory that exists.
How does that help our kids’ education? It doesn’t. It hinders it.
-OC
Anyway, the point here isn’t to argue for or against the validity of evolution, it’s to point out that the Uncooperative Blogger wrote his position piece without a full understanding of the situation. This isn’t merely a class “about” ID, it’s a class fully intended to advance young-earth creationism and make fallacious claims about evolution’s “shaky” standing as a discipline. I think we can all agree that this lawsit, then, is not merely another one of the ACLU’s tiresomely pit-bullying maneuvers, but a legitimate means of ensuring legality in this high school’s classrooms.
I guess my reference to Science Against Evolution is going to be ignored. Probably because it is a non-Christian organization, scientists with degrees that give valid evidence to disprove evolution. Ignorance is bliss as they say.
“Scientists don’t take things on faith.”
This is your problem right there. You’ll now provide undisputable proof that leaves no room for doubt that the Big Bany Theory happened. You can’t, and no scientist claims to. The only one making claims that evolution is undisputable is you, and one website you cited that deals with disproving creationism. Despite your ridiculous abuse of the English language, evolution cannot be a theory and a fact at the same time. We call that a contradiction in terms, and just because a website gave you that idea does not make it true. Btw, there is a whole list of organized religions that your “science can do no wrong” idea falls under.
“there are many renowned mathemiticians who have calculated that the odds of all of Darwin’s theories of evolution being true are astronomically high.”
*Sigh* so many old canards, so little time. Too bad those mathematicians know nothing about biology and that their obviously speculative calculations derive from a creationist mindset. Try again.
“I guess my reference to Science Against Evolution is going to be ignored.”
Correct. It’s a fringe organizaton with no credibility. The fact that they write that evolution is “no longer a respectable theory describing the origin of life” reveals how stupid they are, and that they aren’t scientists (evolution doesn’t deal with “the origin of life” at all).
“Ignorance is bliss as they say.”
I guess you’re a very happy man.
“You’ll now provide undisputable proof that leaves no room for doubt that the Big Bany Theory happened.”
I wonder how many times I can remind you that evolution and cosmology are unrelated fields before you’ll notice. Evidently your strongest argument against evolution is the noisy claim that no one can prove the Big Bang occurred (correct, this can’t be “proven” a la a math theorem), that says it all.
“The only one making claims that evolution is undisputable is you”
Wrong. You think I’m alone in this? I have 99.99% of the science community behind me. Let me guess: They’re all idiots, and a bunch of illiterate creationist mudbrains have the *real* scoop.
“…and one website you cited that deals with disproving creationism.”
No, the website deals primarity with evolution education. Calling it “one website” is short-sighted - it’s a huge, centralized repository for published research and peer-reviewed papers about all aspects of evolution, including, inevitably, wacko creationist claims like yours. That’s why it exists. TalkOrigins.org is universes removed from the nutbag basement sites you so trivially link to.
Y’know, no one really cares what quasi-humans want to believe about skygods and supernatural nonsense. Or, to be precise, if you folks would can it and babble your pointless prayers and whack at your Bibles without meddling with legitimate science, no one would care. Instead, you have to stick your Christ-filthy fingers in the pies of reason. Bad on you.
“…evolution cannot be a theory and a fact at the same time.”
Right, and a brick can’t be ruddy and crimson at the same time. A human being can’t be a female and a woman at the same time, either. Tell me, on your good days, are you at least dimly aware that you are borderline retarded? I’m serious.
You guys can’t rail against evolution to your heart’s content. Guess what? Idiots of faith have been trying this for 150 years and despite their boundless energy they have failed. Every. Time. Why? Because more often than not, facts do triumph in the end. This is heartwarming as it means that Christianity will ultimately be divorced from government and marginalized along with astrology, palm-reading and other superstitious B.S.
Maybe it’s time for you to accept that fact that if evolution is a hoax, it’s clearly one that your skygod wishes fervently for you to believe in?
“fringe organization with no credibility.”
Sure. You are the final authority on such things.
“evolution and cosmology are unrelated fields.”
Great. They gave a degree to an idiot without any reading comprehension. My post addressed the statement you made that scientists take nothing on faith. So maybe now you address what I actually said instead of setting up another strawman. If scientists take nothing on faith then prove the Big Bang Theory beyond a shadow of a doubt with undisputable evidence.
“99.99% if the science community behind me on this one.”
That’s a rather bold statement. Source?
“wacko creationist claims like yours”
Yeah, I made it up. There all mine. I guess literacy isn’t required at your college. You missed the part where I said I don’t necassarily believe in Creation Science. But keep up your impotent frustration. Its music to my ears.
“A human being can’t be a man and a woman at the same time either.”
Your sarcasm is noted, but last time I checked a human couldn’t be a man and a woman at the same time naturally. That requires an operation. The fact you think they can has just discredited your claim to intelligence and I’ll never take anything you say seriously again.
“You guys can’t rail against evolution to your hearts content.”
Sure we can. This is America. Trust me I will. As to your other ridiculous claims that have no factual basis: continue your daily dose of acid. If you believe that evolution somehow prevails against all faith you live in a world of hallucinogens. In case you’ve missed it, despite evolution being taught in almost every public school of all grades, over 90% of America still claim Jesus. That’s how powerful your so called “facts” really are.
apostle, your posts are things of black beauty. Do you have a caregiver who boots up your computer for you and types in the words you gurgle and spit up?
“If scientists take nothing on faith then prove the Big Bang Theory beyond a shadow of a doubt with undisputable evidence.”
Do you see credible scientists claiming to know every detail about the big bang? I don’t. I do, however, see religious morons hither and yon claiming to have all of the answers because of the wonderful and up-to-date science text known as the Holy Bible. Bunch of shameless, drooling hypocrites, eyes roling around in their sockets. I hope they don’t regard themselves as intact human beings; no one else does.
And once again: Name the textbook and the page in said textbook that mentions your “dirt flying” take on the Big Bang. You’re full of faeces.
“There all mine. I guess literacy isn’t required at your college.”
My irony meter just shattered.
Also, from your nutball site:
“It has NOT been scientifically demonstrated that a dead thing can come to life.”
Correct, although I’m not sure what anyone thinks this has to do with evolution. But so much for Easter!
I did make a typo, though — I meant that you of course *can* rail against evolution, and everything else you find confusing and dismaying, to your heart’s content. Science is truth, and truth is not dependent on whether the idiot brigade accepts it or not. Keep praying to Jesus and pretending He’s going to hop up and start dancing the jitterbug once the End Times draw near (and they’re always right around the corner), and meanwhile, people of reason like me will continue to enjoy making the kind of contributions to the world that Godidiots can only gape at.
You can rant and rave on a hole-in-the-wall message board, but at the end of the day people like me control dullards like you. Live with it.
“dullards like you.”
Right. You controll me. That’s why I refute everything that comes out of your dung-spewing mouth.
“Science is truth.”
Sure it is. Prove it.
“Do you see credible scientists claiming to know every detail about the Big Bang?”
I don’t see any credible scientists at all, now that you mention it. But I do see you claiming that science is truth, and since the Big Bang is science maybe you can prove its truth. You can’t, and now you’re back-peddaling so no one notices your inconsistencies. Or should we say, the inconsistencies of science?
“I hope they don’t regard themselves as intact human beings; no one else does.”
Except for the large percentage of Christians and non-Christians alike that think your full of crap. Speaking for everyone else again huh? Kind of like the 99.99% of the science community that supposedly backs up all of your claims. (Still waiting on that source.)
“people of reason like me will continue to enjoy makingn the kind of contributions to the world that Godidiots can only gape at.”
Except that the Godidiots are responsible for those contributions remember? I seem to recall one of your idiot remarks to that: “So? Do you think they’d be that dumb today?”
Since they’re dumb and doing all the contributing, what does that make you? What have you contributed? Teaching people that human being can be two different sexes at the same time? That a theory (something not proven) can also be a fact? (Something proven) Yes, you are most definitley a man of reason. Now you can wake up the dead founding Godidiot fathers of our country and inform them they contributed nothing. (Save for establishing the most powerful country in history.)
Come to think of it, if you see Hitler gassing 6 million Jews as a positive contribution, I guess you could say Darwin got one on us, since it was do to his “science” Hitler believed his race to be superior. Heluva contribution.
Where’s my Haldol?,
I am tolerant to a point. You have surpassed that point numerous times, this being the last!
References such as… “godders”, “Christ-filthy fingers”, “Bunch of shameless, drooling hypocrites, eyes roling around in their sockets.”, “Godidiots”, are intended, solely, to inflame!
They contribute nothing to the debate and serve only to insult many, if not most of those who frequent this forum.
We do not expect you to be attacked and not be able to respond. We do expect you to debate, exercising the same respect you expect of others.
Interesting debate, I will stick to my post, and add one thing to Haldol. I fully understood what I was talking about in the post, and if you read it carefully you will see that I understand it completely. I know the Constitution, and no, the Supreme court did not say you cannot teach about Christianity in school. In fact, they said just the opposite. If it is taught in a philosophical or historical context it is fine.
Now to be just plain fair, if we are going to teach “Human Evolution,” a Theory never proven to be fact and often debated, than we should include what other people “believe” because that is only fair. No one can prove how the Earth was created, and no one can disprove the existence of God. So if we are going to teach one “belief” why not tell what others believe? That belief would be that an intelligent higher power/being created the earth and humans.
loboinok, apostle merits the same warning. Not only that, he’s disturbed and perhaps in the throes of mercury or lead poisoning. Please son’t pretend he’s been any more civil than I have just because you have a more visceral reaction to what I write. And you don’t have to use exclamation points in every sentence! It’s as if you’re screaming at me!
apostle - you continue sliding further down the credibility scale, something I didn’t believe was possible. If you’re going to claim that Charles Darwin was somehow personally responsible for the machinations of a monster like Hitler, than I’ll happily note that [edited] Jesus Christ singlehandedly fomented the Crusades and the Inquisition.
I didn’t say Darwin was responsible. You can now cite where I posted that. Pretty sure I said it was due to the science of Darwin that he believed what he believed. And don’t talk to me about credibility. I’m not going around spreading theory as fact. As far as my civility, you don’t decide what I merit. Go back to your first post on this cite and eat your words. You never even attempted a respectful debate with anyone, just came in and started mouthing off insults, and not really proving anything. Pi$$ing people off isn’t proving them wrong. I talk to you the way I do because its impossible to take you seriously.
Lobo: Nothing else can be said in this debate anyway, since facts apparently are not involved. I usually don’t get forced to stoop to the 6th grade level my opponent has reached to. I won’t sacrifice my integrity and the integrity of this cite any further just to scream at the wall. You have my apologies if I’ve crossed the line in any way.
As long as you continue to claim, in the face of insurmountable evidence to the contrary, that the word “theory” implies an absence of facts, I will continue to point out your slipshod thought processes.
To scientists, “theory,” contrary to what you are desperate to believe, does not mean “wild guess.” You evidently didn’t follow my link, so I’ll help you out by saving you a mouse click.
“THEORY: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.”
See? Now for specifics:
“Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.”
No conflict at all. So you can let that one go. Take a deep breath and whisper or even muble it out loud now: “Evolution is a collection of facts. Evolutionary theory attempts to properly link and explain those facts.”
The original post here was an uninformed complaint about the failure of the AU to let slide an obvious effort to advance young-earth creationism in a public school in California. The author, in looking at the situation only superficially, had been duped in exactly the manner the special-ed teacher and her minister husband clearly hoped, what with their claim (read: lie) that the “philosophy” class was to be “about” ID. I don’t see the author or anyone else complaining about my initial, dispassionate assessment of what’s really afoot in El Tajon, but you saw fit to wade in and continue your ignorant ranting about the epistemological shakiness of evolution and the alleged number of scientists who reject it. The evidence is right up above.
Then we have this gem a back-pedaling expedition:
“I didn’t say Darwin was responsible. You can now cite where I posted that. Pretty sure I said it was due to the science of Darwin that he believed what he believed.”
Uh-huh. You don’t claim that Darwin is responsible for Hitler’s actions, just that the work attributed solely to Darwin. If you ever find yourself in a position to represent yourself in court, please do yourself a favor and obtain a lawyer, pronto. You wouldn’t last the morning.
If you say things that are not only wrong, but aggressively and virulently so, I will state as much. I am fully capable of doing so civilly, but I do not suffer angry fools gladly, and you have inarguable said many, many things about one of my fields of expertise that any objective observer would term foolish. It’s that simple.
“apostle merits the same warning.”
As you can see from post #17, apostle had no difficulty understanding what I wrote.
“more visceral reaction”
Were that the case, you would have been gone a long time ago.
“And you don’t have to use exclamation points in every sentence! It’s as if you’re screaming at me!”
Just view them as emphasis rather than emotion. Maybe that will help with the “visceral” as well.
Uncooperative Blogger: The University of California is being sued now for dropping courses they felt did not teach the subject matter adequately. Some of the courses effected were English, science, religion and ethics. I posted about it on my website.
Quote: “Only someone willfully wearing blinders or endorsing illegal creation teaching would pooh-pooh this detail; it’s no secret where the teacher’s syllabus was coming from.”
False! Teaching creationism is not illegal as long as it made clear that it is a religious viewpoint. If this course makes it clear that it is presenting a religious viewpoint then it is no more illegal than teaching Greek or Native American creation myths is illegal.
If you want to make the case that the course material is biased and doesn’t serve the educational needs of the community tell to the school board. Don’t go reaching for the sickle and hammer and call the ACLU and make a federal case out of it.
Its not a federal issue nor a constitutional issue. Its just an issue of convincing folks to use better course material.
Look, I’m a progressive mediated creationist/semi-theistic evolutionist (cool with common descent and a 14 billion year old verse) and I would actively oppose the way this course way is designed but I wouldn’t immediated try injected the Feds into designing curriculum. I mean there is nothing in the Constitution about public school curriculum so why try to torture the text with nonsense about separation of school and religious statements and deal with issue like adults?
You know like discussing including other views of design and evolution.
If you think you have to go to court and claim that whole constitution is ignored because you don’t like the teacher choice in educational videos then you’ve got serious problem with megalomania and need professional help.
“I’m a progressive mediated creationist/semi-theistic evolutionist…”
That covers a lot of ground. I’d hate to see your title: Dr. Rev. Professor Septeus7, MD.
“Teaching creationism is not illegal as long as it is made clear that it is a religious viewpoint.”
I think this is why public education is the flop that it is. A republican government should not be dictating what the curriculumn is at all. When it comes to law and legislation of any kind, elected officials pass and reject law, and are accountable to their constituents for the results. If they are not properly representing their constituents, they are subject to be voted out.
If a the government insists on ignoring the Constitution and funding a public school, then the tax-payers paying for it should be deciding its structure. That is why we have a majority, and that is why there are school board meetings and PTA meetings, so parents can contribute. It is a fact that most Americans by an overwhelming majority are fine with teaching Creation Science in public school. Just look at the public opinion polls.
This article has some interesting things to say concerning this debate.
Septeus 7: You make a good general point, but in terms of the specifics of this episode, you’re off-base. The syllabus (especially the original one, which was hastily replaced once the dogs started barking) clearly indicates that the intention of this teacher was to advocate for traditional YEC. Obviously this is grounds for a lawsuit, tiresome though it may seem. Teaching *about* creationism — hell, I’d be all for it, just to demonstrate to non-religious kids what it is that so many of their peers get all agitated about. But you understand that in the current climate this is a virtual impossibility (i.e., raising thiestic issues in public school without someone making noise). Fundamentalist Christians have earned this backlash.
apostle — I agree with you that public education is a mess and should be scrapped as it exists today. I bet that the Christian community could afford to educate anyone that wanted to be a part of it. This would entail teaching a bunch of mythology and witchcraft masquerading as science, but at least families wouldn’t be paying property taxes in order to fund the teaching of stuff that’s accurate but very disagreeable to them.
Your assertion that Christian schools don’t teach science shows how little you know about Christian education. Christian schools have science class. Yes, they teach God created the earth, rather than the universe just puking itself into existence. But they also teach the world being billions of years old, and all the stuff quack science has indoctrinated us with. Creation science is a whole other ball-game. Yes, they both teach that God created the earth, (something science can’t disprove)but science in Christian schools is traditional science. (not sure if traditional is the right word. You know what I mean. Its late.)
I happen to think it ironic what CREDIBLE experts in the field of science actually tell people. They let everyone know how full of crap they are. Such as this quote from Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin in his review of Sagan’s Billions and Billions of Demons:
“We take the side of science in spite of the absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenominal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherance to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialsim is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Sure, Catholic schools are typically on board with mainstream science, but “schools” run by fundagelical Christians certainly aren’t. Teaching creationism automatically disqualifies an institution from having a meaningful biology curriculum. If you don’t l;ike that assertion, don’t complain to me — complain to the entire science community, which, with the exception of a few noisy wingnuts who have rightfully been ostracized by their peers, is unified in its rejection of creation myths on the basis of their “revealed knowledge” and “faith-only” aspects.
“Yes, they both teach that God created the earth, (something science can’t disprove)but science in Christian schools is traditional science.”
Teaching that God created the earth is not traditional science, or science, period. It’s a faith-bases a priori conclusion rooted solely in tradition.
You’re free to believe what you wish, but we both know that there is no evidence for creationism (otherwise there would be no need for invoking “faith” and we both know that science relies on evidence. “Creation science” is plainly an oxymoron fomented by religious sorts aiming to lend credibility to an endeavor that merits none.
To state that “science can’t disprove” anything is to reveal wholesale ignorance of the scientific method as well as of basic philosophy. How does one “prove” the nonexistence of anything? Can you prove that the other 1,500 deities that are not the Abrahamic one do not exist? Can you prove that there aren’t giant purple cows orbiting Pluto?
Finally, I’m not going to torture you with an explanation of what Lewontin was trying to convey because 1) I’m not a cruel man and 2) your mind is about as malleable as concrete.
Also, perhaps Septeus7, as a semi-theistic evolutionist, will corroborate my claim (which is not mine at all, but apostle likes to believe as much) that evolution is both a fact and a theory. It’s explained in plain English at talkorigins.org, but apostle doesn’t think that actual scientists are qualified to speak on the issue, only religious folks.
Not just Catholic schools. Protestant schools as well. Not sure where you got that information from.
“is unified in its rejection of creation myths”
Because otherwise they’d be out of a job.
“Teaching that God created the earth is not traditional science.”
I know. What I was trying to say (not very well) is that while Christian schools teach that God created the world, their science classes are traditional science. By that I mean the same stuff taught to public school goers.