Korean Job Discussion Forums

[fiveeagles]

A landmark legal trial begins on Monday that could determine how the theory of evolution - one of the basic tenets of modern science - is taught in US schools.

In the town of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 11 parents of children who already attend the nearby Dover High school or who will in future, together with the American Civil Liberties Union, are suing the Dover Area School District for voting in new rules that will encourage children to consider alternatives to evolution such as ��intelligent design�� (ID).

The court��s verdict will only bind schools within the Dover district, but could influence how schools teach evolution across the country, says Witold Walczak, a lawyer for the ACLU of Pennsylvania based in Pittsburgh, who will represent the parents.

��If we lose this case, I suspect it will send a green light to many school districts across the country that it is okay to teach ID,�� he says. ��If we win, hopefully it will put a break on what we view as a religious concept.��
Intelligent agent

ID is the controversial assertion that an intelligent agent rather than an undirected process such as evolution is responsible for certain features of the universe and living things.

The parents claim the school board violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by creating new teaching requirements at the end of 2004 that cast doubt on evolution, introduce students to ID and encourage them to read anti-evolutionary, pro-ID literature. The First Amendment prohibits teaching that is religiously motivated, or has the effect of advancing religion.

The debate over ID, an idea that opponents call ��camouflaged creationism��, has been raging since the publication in 1989 of a book called Of Pandas and People, which introduced the concept. The trial, known as ��Kitzmiller-Dover�� after one of the parents Tammy Kitzmiller, will be the first to expose ID to the scrutiny of a court.

It will hinge on whether ID is a respectable scientific theory, or a religious belief that masquerades as science to sidestep a 1987 Supreme Court ruling that outlawed the teaching of creationism in schools.
Latest incarnation

The plaintiffs will argue that it is the latter. ��There is so much evidence that this is just the latest incarnation of creationism,�� says Walczak. He points to early drafts of Of Pandas and People, written before 1987. ��It��s identical except for where it says creationism it now says intelligent design.��

This view is shared by the mainstream science community. Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science based in Washington DC and publisher of the journal Science, says: ��ID was an effort to correct the legal problems of creation science.��

It will be up to the defence to prove that ID is in fact a scientific concept that has a primarily secular purpose and a secular effect on students.

One expert witness for the defence will be Michael Behe, a scientist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and an outspoken ID proponent. He declined to comment when contacted by New Scientist because of his involvement in the trial, but he promotes ID as a scientific theory.
Reasonable explanation

In July 2005, he told New Scientist that because some systems cannot function properly without all their components, they could not evolve by the accumulation of chance mutations. The only reasonable explanation is ID, he asserted.

The Dover High School board of directors would not comment and their legal defence team did not contact New Scientist in time for this story.

There will be no jury because the case is about interpreting the constitution, and although the judge��s decision will only be binding in Dover, either side could appeal. An appellate court decision would apply in four states - Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and the Virgin Islands.

If that decision was also appealed, the trial could move to a Supreme Court, whose verdict would apply to the whole nation, says Walczak.
Trial time line

• Monday 26th September 2005: opening statements

• First week: testimony from plaintiffs�� expert witnesses, including scientists Kenneth Miller of Brown University, Robert Pennock of Michigan State University and Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University, followed by John Haught a theologian at Georgetown University

• Next two to three weeks: continuation of plaintiffs�� case - more expert witnesses including Brian Alters at Harvard University and Kevin Padian at the University of California, Berkeley.

• Last two to three weeks: defence��s case, including expert witnesses such as scientists Michael Behe, Scott Minnich of the University of Idaho and Warren Nord of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Also, Dick Carpenter of US Evangelical Christian group Focus on the Family and sociologist Steve Fuller of the University of Warwick, UK.

• Early November: closing arguments

• Early December: Judge��s verdict

[peppermint]

The possibility of ID being taught as a valid theory in American schools disturbs me more than most of the news I've heard out of the US recently.

What's next? Will they start challenging Gallileo's ideas on the solar system?

[VanIslander]

[Tiger Beer]

Whatever they teach seems completely irrelevant.

Teaching evolutionism or even the communist ideologies of God doesn't exist (i.e. the Soviet Union).. still doesn't have any effect whatsoever on people's religious beliefs.. either they believe it or they don't..

One hour of a 'evolution' class isn't going to seriously disrupt anyone's religious beliefs.. they'll still figure out a way to believe whatever it is they believe regardless of an hour of their life being taught something contradictory.

Guess what.. get use to the rest of their lives acquiring bits of 'knowledge'.. I hear all kinds of weird things being taught in all kinds of places all the time that I don't believe.

Regarding ID (Intelligent Design).. it does sound like the creationists are back to work again.. who cares.. put them both side-by-side.. Evolution vs. ID (hey, ID, nice name.. could work well for Jewish, Muslim, Buudhish, Hindu and all the others).

[Summer Wine]

Does it have to be an either/or argument for evolution?

[Bulsajo]

All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

[Alias]

[fiveeagles]

VI, great post!!

[Tiger Beer]

[fiveeagles]

It's more than one day. It is about a conceptional change. If the ID theory is thought of as a credible belief, than this will change the whole paradygm in what we see through.

Many people look at their teachers as role models and someone to be respected. If all of a sudden, those who believe in ID can come out of the closet and tell their students that they believe. IT will be very big.

That's why it is being so opposed.

[Bulsajo]

[hypnotist]

I don't see any problem with ID being a possibility - but to say it's a theory or science is bunk. Keep it to Religious Studies lessons.

The Guardian covers this quite well. This sums up my opinions on the subject. This is an interesting interview with Michael Bede, and this is just interesting.

[Dan The Chainsawman]

Someone remind me how many kids can't read and write properly on completion of High School?

So now we are tossing tax dollars around like a drunken sailor worrying about ID?

Christ talk about screwed up priorities.

Reading 'riting and 'rithmatic is what American children need, not spoon feed puddles of politically pandered crap.

[cionanian-cro]

[Swiss James]

one of the most shocking things I ever read on Dave's ESL was when a US High School Biology teacher mentioned that she "just didn't buy" evolution and was more comfortable teaching ID.

The whole issue is terrifying to me.