Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Judge bars intelligent design, calls it religious teaching
By: MARILYN H. KARFELD Senior Staff Reporter
A federal judge’s ruling this week that intelligent design cannot be taught in a public science school class is a victory for those who say the so-called alternate theory to evolution unconstitutionally brings religion to the public arena.
The decision also may affect what goes on here in Ohio. An Ohio master biology lesson, approved by the state board of education, has drawn the ire of scientists and constitutional watchdogs who say it unlawfully wedges open the public schoolhouse door to the teaching of religion.
In a broad, 139-page ruling, Judge John E. Jones III wrote that intelligent design is an endorsement of religion, specifically a “particular version of Christianity,” and as such it may not be introduced in the Dover, Pa., science curriculum.
“We’re delighted the judge recognized that intelligent design is really a stalking horse for creationism under a different name,” says Jeff Gamso, legal director for the ACLU of Ohio.
However, the Ohio situation is vastly different from that in Pennsylvania, Gamso notes. The ACLU brought the Dover case, where the school board mandated the teaching of intelligent design. It required science teachers in ninth grade biology class to tell students that evolution was merely a theory with significant gaps.
The statement went on to inform students about the intelligent design textbook, Of Pandas and People, copies of which were contributed by a school board member’s church.
In Ohio, the science lesson “A Critical Analysis of Evolution” is not mandated, Gamso points out. “How and if at all what happened in Dover is going to determine what should happen in Ohio is something we will be studying in the weeks to come.”
While liberal Jewish groups hailed the Dover decision, Orthodox groups were less pleased with what the ruling says about educating the nation’s children.
Attorney Nathan Lewin, a Washington attorney who has argued many cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and often represents Orthodox interests, told the Jewish news agency JTA the basis of the judge’s decision is “nonsense.” He decried the judge’s taking into account the intentions behind the school board’s actions. “Either the result is OK or it’s not OK. That’s what ought to be the standard.”
Jones’ decision is one of the most cogent and clear descriptions of the whole intelligent design phenomenon, says Lawrence M. Krauss, physics professor at Case Western Reserve University and an outspoken critic of intelligent design. “While people are trying to argue that this is a scientific issue, that’s really a guise. They are coming at this from a religious perspective.”
Ohio’s master science lesson, the “Critical Analysis of Evolution,” is an embarrassment, says Krauss. All of the lesson’s web and textbook references are taken from intelligent design literature. “Scientists from the National Academy of Science on down have talked to the state and told them this is not an appropriate science lesson plan.”
While Ohio doesn’t mention the words “intelligent design” in its lesson plan, the intent is to introduce religion into science classes, Krauss says. “It’s clear the intent is not to produce a critical analysis of evolution.”
The judge in the Dover case doesn’t just state that intelligent design is a violation of church and state. “He goes on to declare that intelligent design isn’t science,” says Rob Boston, spokesperson for Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
“Jones is a conservative judge, appointed by George W. Bush. He can’t be tarred as a left-wing activist. Even he recognized intelligent design for the theology that it is,” says boston.
Americans United are working with Ohio Citizens for Science to get more information on how the Ohio school board’s master lesson came to be, Boston says, with “an eye toward proving the religion motivation behind adoption of the plan.”
The federal courts look at a policy’s motivation and intent in school prayer cases and, by extension, litigation about creationism in the schools, notes Patricia Princehouse, an evolutionary biologist and active intelligent design opponent.
“The case law is very clear,” says Princehouse, a Case instructor in evolutionary biology as well as the philosophy of science. “It doesn’t matter if the lesson is optional. You can’t have a government agency endorsing a particular religious viewpoint.”
In his decision, Jones talks about how endorsing particular religious views gives privileged political status to the kids in school who ascribe to those views, Princehouse notes. “It gives outsider status to others, and that’s illegal.”
Records that Americans United have obtained from the Ohio department of education make clear the state school board knew of the religious motivation behind the evolution lesson, Princehouse says. Americans United has put the state on notice that if the Ohio school board does not act, litigation will follow, she says.
The Ohio board of education next meets Jan. 9 and 10 in Columbus, with public comment allowed on the latter date. In the past 20 to 30 years, creationists have renamed their fundamentalist version of the origins of life, with intelligent design the latest designation. “Each times it goes to court, the judge says ‘I don’t care what you call it,’” Princehouse notes. “It’s still religion, not science, and not acceptable for the science classroom.”
The decision also may affect what goes on here in Ohio. An Ohio master biology lesson, approved by the state board of education, has drawn the ire of scientists and constitutional watchdogs who say it unlawfully wedges open the public schoolhouse door to the teaching of religion.
In a broad, 139-page ruling, Judge John E. Jones III wrote that intelligent design is an endorsement of religion, specifically a “particular version of Christianity,” and as such it may not be introduced in the Dover, Pa., science curriculum.
“We’re delighted the judge recognized that intelligent design is really a stalking horse for creationism under a different name,” says Jeff Gamso, legal director for the ACLU of Ohio.
However, the Ohio situation is vastly different from that in Pennsylvania, Gamso notes. The ACLU brought the Dover case, where the school board mandated the teaching of intelligent design. It required science teachers in ninth grade biology class to tell students that evolution was merely a theory with significant gaps.
The statement went on to inform students about the intelligent design textbook, Of Pandas and People, copies of which were contributed by a school board member’s church.
In Ohio, the science lesson “A Critical Analysis of Evolution” is not mandated, Gamso points out. “How and if at all what happened in Dover is going to determine what should happen in Ohio is something we will be studying in the weeks to come.”
While liberal Jewish groups hailed the Dover decision, Orthodox groups were less pleased with what the ruling says about educating the nation’s children.
Attorney Nathan Lewin, a Washington attorney who has argued many cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and often represents Orthodox interests, told the Jewish news agency JTA the basis of the judge’s decision is “nonsense.” He decried the judge’s taking into account the intentions behind the school board’s actions. “Either the result is OK or it’s not OK. That’s what ought to be the standard.”
Jones’ decision is one of the most cogent and clear descriptions of the whole intelligent design phenomenon, says Lawrence M. Krauss, physics professor at Case Western Reserve University and an outspoken critic of intelligent design. “While people are trying to argue that this is a scientific issue, that’s really a guise. They are coming at this from a religious perspective.”
Ohio’s master science lesson, the “Critical Analysis of Evolution,” is an embarrassment, says Krauss. All of the lesson’s web and textbook references are taken from intelligent design literature. “Scientists from the National Academy of Science on down have talked to the state and told them this is not an appropriate science lesson plan.”
While Ohio doesn’t mention the words “intelligent design” in its lesson plan, the intent is to introduce religion into science classes, Krauss says. “It’s clear the intent is not to produce a critical analysis of evolution.”
The judge in the Dover case doesn’t just state that intelligent design is a violation of church and state. “He goes on to declare that intelligent design isn’t science,” says Rob Boston, spokesperson for Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
“Jones is a conservative judge, appointed by George W. Bush. He can’t be tarred as a left-wing activist. Even he recognized intelligent design for the theology that it is,” says boston.
Americans United are working with Ohio Citizens for Science to get more information on how the Ohio school board’s master lesson came to be, Boston says, with “an eye toward proving the religion motivation behind adoption of the plan.”
The federal courts look at a policy’s motivation and intent in school prayer cases and, by extension, litigation about creationism in the schools, notes Patricia Princehouse, an evolutionary biologist and active intelligent design opponent.
“The case law is very clear,” says Princehouse, a Case instructor in evolutionary biology as well as the philosophy of science. “It doesn’t matter if the lesson is optional. You can’t have a government agency endorsing a particular religious viewpoint.”
In his decision, Jones talks about how endorsing particular religious views gives privileged political status to the kids in school who ascribe to those views, Princehouse notes. “It gives outsider status to others, and that’s illegal.”
Records that Americans United have obtained from the Ohio department of education make clear the state school board knew of the religious motivation behind the evolution lesson, Princehouse says. Americans United has put the state on notice that if the Ohio school board does not act, litigation will follow, she says.
The Ohio board of education next meets Jan. 9 and 10 in Columbus, with public comment allowed on the latter date. In the past 20 to 30 years, creationists have renamed their fundamentalist version of the origins of life, with intelligent design the latest designation. “Each times it goes to court, the judge says ‘I don’t care what you call it,’” Princehouse notes. “It’s still religion, not science, and not acceptable for the science classroom.”
 |
 |
|
| Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’ | Synagogue cleaning up after Katrina |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of clevelandjewishnews.com.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments. Registration is free.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
