What's All the Fuss About? Evolution, Intelligent Design and Science Education - California

Welcome!Sign InMy School List (0)

Article Tools

Print This Article

Email This Article

Sign-up For Newsletters

See full library of articles

What's All the Fuss About? Evolution, Intelligent Design and Science Education

Where states, school boards and the courts stand on the place of evolution in the science curriculum.

By Lisa Rosenthal, Greatschools.net Staff

The science classroom, the courts, local and state school boards are the battlegrounds, and the battle is over what should be taught in public school about how the earth and human beings came to be. The debate over whether the theory of evolution, intelligent design or both should be taught in science class comes as questions are being raised about whether U.S. students are learning what they need to become scientifically literate adults in the 21st century.

What is Intelligent Design?
Who are its proponents?
What’s the difference between intelligent design and creationism?
What is the theory of evolution?
What’s the conflict and what are the issues?
What is the role of the school board?
How have the courts ruled?

What is Intelligent Design?
Proponents of intelligent design, such as Casey Luskin, the program officer

Related Links:

National Center for Science Education

National Academy of Sciences

The Discovery Institute

The Thomas More Law Center

The Thomas B. Fordham 2005 Report on the State of State Science Standards

“Evolution in State Science Education Standards,” an Education Week review of state science standards and the teaching of evolution

for public policy and legal affairs for Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture in Seattle, WA, believe that some parts of nature are too complex to be solely explained by the theory of evolution and therefore there is some unspecified “intelligent source” that has “designed” the universe. They speak of intelligent design as science, rather than religion.

What should parents do?

1. Find out where your state ranks in terms of science standards. Find out what topics and benchmarks are included in the standards. “State science standards are important, “notes Susan Spath. “Citizens need to support good strong science standards because they give teachers a strong reference point. Teachers can say, ‘I have to teach it this way. It’s in the standards.’”

2. Keep an eye on proposed state legislation regarding science education. “Anti-evolution legislation may be proposed in at least 10 states this year and there could be more,” says Spath. She advises parents to be aware when citizens’ committees are set up to monitor science standards and feels that it is more appropriate for scientists and science teachers to be the ones providing oversight.

3. Find out how science is taught in your school and district, and where your district and school board stand on the issue. Check to see how your school and school district interpret the First Amendment and what the separation of church and state means in your child’s classroom. According to the First Amendment and recent court decisions, schools may not teach religion in public schools but they are permitted to teach about religion.

4. Take a serious look at the candidates running for your local school board. Find out where they stand on the teaching of evolution and intelligent design in your school.

5. Check your child’s science textbook to see how evolution is described.

6. Check with your child’s science teacher to find out where evolution fits in the curriculum and how it is taught.

“Intelligent design is a scientific theory which states that some aspects of nature are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected cause such as natural selection,” says Luskin. He believes that teachers should not be forced to teach about intelligent design but that those who understand it and want to teach it should have the right to do so in high school biology classes.

The vast majority of scientists, however, reject intelligent design as an essentially religious and scientifically unverifiable belief, and say that evolution is one of the most thoroughly tested explanations in science. Regardless, backers of intelligent design believe that schools should at least “teach the controversy.”

Who are its proponents?
The Discovery Institute of Seattle supports challenging the theory of evolution. The Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, supplied the lawyers to argue the first case defending the inclusion of intelligent design in the high school science curriculum.

What do the state science standards say?

According to a 2005 Education Week survey of state science standards from 41 states, 39 state standards documents offer some description of biological evolution and how it accounts for the diversity of species that exist today, while 35 of these documents go further and give similar treatment to Darwin’s principle of natural selection. More...

What’s the difference between intelligent design and creationism?
Creationism is more clearly based upon religion than intelligent design. Creationists believe that God made the world and all living things. Intelligent design proponents do not say who created the world, just that there is evidence of some higher source involved in the world’s design. They do not specify who or what that source is. But because they don’t mention religion, they believe their view is secular and thus has a place in science curriculum. Many of their critics believe that intelligent design is “thinly veiled creationism.”

“Intelligent design is a form of creationism in our book,” says Susan Spath, public information project director at the National Center for Science Education, a national clearinghouse for information and advice on keeping evolution in the science classroom. “The 1987 Supreme Court decision said creation science was religious belief and therefore could not be taught in public schools.”

What is the theory of evolution?
Charles Darwin, author of “The Origin of Species,” (published in 1859) advanced the theory of evolution, which states that humans and other living creatures came from common ancestors and have changed over time through a process of “random mutation” and “natural selection.” A scientific theory, such as the theory of evolution, is not a guess but rather an overarching explanation that pulls together tested facts and observation, which can be used to make predictions about nature.

In 2005 new DNA evidence and research at the Broad Institute at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University further validated the theory of evolution. Scientists there were able to determine that there is only a 4 percent difference between human and chimpanzee DNA. This new evidence is the latest of many discoveries in recent years in genetics, biochemistry, geology and paleontology that lend further credence to the theory of evolution.

What’s the conflict and what are the issues?
Proponents of intelligent design believe that intelligent design should be taught in school science classes, or at the very least, “teach the controversy.” Opponents feel that intelligent design and other views about the creation of life that refer to some “higher source” should not be taught in science classes because there is no scientific basis for their inclusion and teaching about a “higher source” violates the First Amendment, the separation of church and state.

Derek Davis, Director of the J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor University, Texas, says, “ Proponents of intelligent design argue that this is not a remaking of creationism—that intelligent design is science and not religion. My own sense is that it is just a substitute for creationism; it has some indicia of scientific inquiry but relies on a religious notion; something that cannot be explained.”

Davis believes that in a pluralistic society, such as the United States, teaching religion in the classroom leads to persecution. “The state cannot advance religious ideas. It leads to too close a relation between church and state,” he says. “The courts have said it’s okay to teach about religion but not teach religious truth. It’s fine to teach the history of religion, the role of religion in art or music as part of history, or in comparative religion courses. Science should be science. Keep the discipline pure.”

Davis affirms there is a place for intelligent design but not in science classes. He advocates that school districts add “issues” classes that discuss “hot-button topics of the day” such as intelligent design, abortion and the death penalty. “There’s no end to the number of these subjects,” he says.

Most scientists argue that there is no controversy to be taught, because scientists for the most part are in agreement with the theory of evolution. Yet, the National Science Teachers Association recently reported that three out of 10 teachers feel pressure from students and parents to include alternatives to evolution in their science lessons.

What is the role of the school board?
School boards and state legislatures across the country are faced with the issue. In at least 16 states, policymakers are taking a close look at the debate and its implications for what is taught in school. And efforts to raise questions about the teaching of evolution and/or promote alternatives have occurred in more than 30 states.

Overseeing the curriculum is one of the roles of the school board. School boards approve textbook adoptions and curriculum, and as a result, have been drawn into the intelligent design vs. evolution debate, or in many cases, have brought the debate themselves to the attention of the board.

The question is how far should school boards go on this issue? Their role is to decide if course content is academically sound and to be sure textbooks are chosen that are in line with state-level academic standards, but not necessarily to decide what specifically is taught.

In addition, there is no law that requires school boards to approve state-recommended curriculum or to use state academic frameworks. But the schools in the district they oversee will be judged on student performance on state standardized tests, which are based on these academic frameworks, and the school board is ultimately responsible for the success of its students.

How have the courts ruled?

In Pennsylvania
In the first court case that has been decided regarding the teaching of intelligent design, Katzmiller vs. Dover Area School District, in December 2005, Judge John E. Jones III ruled in federal court in Harrisburg, PA that intelligent design is religion, not science, and that teaching intelligent design violates the First Amendment and the separation of church and state. In his 139-page opinion, Judge Jones wrote that intelligent design is "a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory" that must not be taught in a public school science class.

The case only has jurisdiction in the Dover, PA area, but may well have implications for future cases. The $1 million in legal fees that the local school board must now pay as a result of the judgment may discourage other school boards from becoming embroiled in the issue.

The case was brought by 11 parents of children in the Dover School District when the Dover Area School Board voted to include a brief statement as part of the ninth-grade biology curriculum that questioned the Darwinian theory of evolution and referred students to an alternative Christian textbook entitled Of Pandas and People.

In early January 2006, the newly elected Dover Area School Board rescinded the former school board’s policy that required teachers to include a statement about intelligent design in ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. Most of the board members who had voted for the previous policy did not win re-election.

In Georgia
In Cobb County, GA, schools placed a sticker on biology textbooks that stated that evolution is “a theory, not a fact” and should be “approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.” In January 2005, a federal judge ruled that that sticker is unconstitutional. The county school board voted to appeal the decision, and a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals is expected in spring 2006.

How the courts have historically handled the teaching of evolution
The courts originally got involved in this issue back in 1925 with the famous “Scopes Monkey Trial” in which Tennessee high school teacher John Scopes was prosecuted and convicted for teaching the Darwinian theory of evolution. Although the case brought the theory of evolution into the limelight, Scopes lost the case and the teaching of evolution didn’t resurface as an issue until 1968.

Between 1925 and 1968, in an effort to skirt the issue, most textbook publishers had pretty well eliminated Darwin and the theory of evolution from biology textbooks. But beginning in 1958, on the occasion of the centenary of Darwin’s famous work, “The Origin of Species,” the National Science Foundation launched a campaign to get top biologists to rewrite science textbooks to include evolution. In 1968 the U.S. Supreme Court began striking down laws that banned the teaching of evolution.

In 1982 a federal court in Arkansas ruled against a state statute requiring public schools to give a “balanced treatment for creation-science and evolution-science” on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment. In Edwards vs. Aguillard, in 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Lousiana's Creationism Act, which forbid the teaching of the theory of evolution in public elementary and secondary schools unless accompanied by instruction in the theory of "creation science" was unconstitutional because it endorsed the teaching of religious beliefs. However, the Supreme Court judgment did point out that "a law intended to maximize the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of science instruction would encourage the teaching of all scientific theories about human origins."

The debate rages on
Even if intelligent design is banned from some school biology courses, the debate rages on. John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture, and associate professor of political science at Seattle Pacific University, wrote in a recent editorial in USA Today: “Those who think they can stop the growing interest in intelligent design through court orders or intimidation are deluding themselves. Americans don't like being told there are some ideas they aren't permitted to investigate. Try to ban an idea, and you will generate even more interest in it.”

January 2006

Comments From GreatSchools.net Users

04/7/2008:

"To whoever wrote in 2/19/2008: When you say Evolution is an established FACT, you show that you don't even know what you actually espouse. Your contention then is that all life came for a broth of 'complex chemicals' all by itself, something mature can't do today, and scientists can't test or replicate, but it's still a FACT. Your contention also is that all life was in the water and through a process that took millions of years, these sea creatures somehow grew lungs and were able to live out of the water. That fairy tale is illogical because there is no way the critters could have survived out of the water long enough to grow these organs--with DNA that the parents did not possess themselves. Nor could the critters have had lungs and not drown before they got out (unless you believe the parents who didn't have the DNA to have lungs knew their offspring would, so they stayed near the shoreline so they could throw them up on the beach after they were born. Please, tell me you don't believe that becaus! e you'd really be grasping straws then!) Again, scientists can't test or replicate these claims, but it's still...a FACT. Without belaboring this too long, let's consider bird beaks. Evolution espouses that bird beaks formed out of necessity so the intrepid birds could survive on the various nuts that are in their habitat. Well, if I'm a bird, and I need to eat what's around me today, how can I possibly survive waiting millions of years for my beak to properly form so I can finally eat those darned nuts? I know, because Evolution is an established FACT, I fell prey to survival of the fittest, and those old nuts were the fittest--until some 'other' bird that did not have to eat those nuts finally evolved its beak--why? Evolution espouses that environment will drive these changes. Just because some guy in a lab coat says that's the way it is doesn't make it FACT. Even if EVERY guy in a lab coat says that's the way it is doesn't make it any less stupid. What's alive to! day just can't wait a million years until they get what need n! ow. Tha t statement alone pretty much debunks evolution. How hard of a concept is that to understand? By the way, which came first, the chicken or the egg? If you espouse evolution, you're left in a phylosophical quagmire. If you believe in God, you have your answer, the chicken, of course. Suffolk Va"

02/25/2008:

"According to world-renowned architect Norman Foster, who is behind the design of France's Millau Bridge, the bridge, which has an airy and fluid appearance, was designed to have the 'delicacy of a butterfly.' See photo at: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5003/1093/1600/image001.jpg. Designed, Foster said. Yet the butterfly on which the design was based is somehow NOT the result of design? That's illogical."

02/22/2008:

"Note this excerpt from 'An Interview with Mr. John Calvert on Intelligent Design' (http://www.tfp.org/TFPForum/Tendential_Revolution/interview_with_john_calvert.htm): 'Science is theoretical and religion is dogmatic. In religion, you cannot argue with certain tenets that are accepted by faith. In science, every explanation should be open to criticism and revision. Science is inherently skeptical—and it should be. For example, evolution's contention that life is not a product of Intelligent Design should be open inherently to question. 'When that 'unspoken' rule is used to exclude Intelligent Design, evolution ceases to be theoretical. It becomes a dogma or an ideology, and the use of that 'unspoken' rule actually takes evolution out of science and into theology. For evolution to be scientific, it has to accept the challenge of Intelligent Design."

02/19/2008:

"Contrary to the claim of Intelligent Design, Evolution is an established FACT. The only theory is how it has unfolded because there are still gaps in our knowledge. Intelligent Design is a RELIGIOUS BELIEF and cannot be legally taught in the public schools."

01/3/2008:

"Intelligent design is not a valid scientific theory (it can't be subjected to experimentation, for example), so ID has no place in a classroom unless the subject being studied is religion or politics. For those who think ID *should* be taught in school, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on pastafarianism (an equally viable scientific theory)."

12/27/2007:

"Why not leave the states to determine their path in this matter. We do not figure into their final decision. In the interim, however, embrace the challenge of offering your own children the opportunity to understand the controversy from your very own perspective. What an opportunity to educate your child(ren)using your own approach!! As someone aptly suggested, we need not leave all education to the state or school districts. Begin by explaining the controversy to your children, prepare them for whatever the school district will employ, and then facilitate their efforts to process the information as they ultimately make their own decision. YOU influence the entire process!! I did it with resounding success.... "

12/26/2007:

"I agree that Intelligent Design will not go away and well it should not. To conclude it is tantamount to religion per the PA court ruling is absurd. It's as much a theory as is Evolution for which there is minimal proof and many fossil lapses in time which their proponents cannot explain. I think BOTH should be taught because there is probably an element of truth in both. I do not believe the world is only 5000 years old like some fundamentalists do so some adaptive evolution and species selection must have occurred. "

12/11/2007:

"Remember when religion ruled the world, it was called the Dark ages! "

12/11/2007:

"I believe that Intelligent Design should be taught to our children. I personnally do not believe in evolution and believe it is a flawed theory (e.g., complete fossil record doesn't exist, most mutations are not good but bad, etc.). Both Intelligent Design and evolution are theories, neither of which are 'capable of being experimented for their validity by other researchers working under the same conditions' (from the accepted definition of science)by scientists; if Intelligent Design is not science, neither is evolution."

11/26/2007:

"Forget science! A lot of the writers in this group need to learn how to spell and construct simple sentences!"

11/13/2007:

"I am very disappointed in our schools regarding this issue. I have many legitimate arguements for intelligent design which the evolutionists are not able to answer. I find it very sad that they are so afraid of an opposing theory that they will not even let the idea of another theory be introduced in the schools. If this theory is so factual and undebatable then why are they afraid to introduce another avenue of thought? Prove it wrong in a fair venue. Isn't that what Darwin wanted when he presented his ideas to the creationists? "

11/6/2007:

"One big problem with teaching intelligent design in science classrooms is that there is nothing to teach. There is no curriculum, no textbooks, and certainly no lab work. This according to the Discovery Institute. Also, there's no 'controversy.' The number of practicing biologists who accept intelligent design is insignificant, and the number of peer-reviewed ID articles in science journals is nil. Look up intelligent design on PubMed or Google Scholar to see for yourself. In contrast, such searches on 'evolution' will find many thousands of scientific articles every year--all accepting evolution as fact. So what would be taught, exactly? Intelligent design is nothing more than a criticism of evolution based on religious beliefs. Science classrooms must focus on the science that's practiced by the vast majority of real scientists. Otherwise, kids will have to struggle to learn real science when they reach college. If you want to teach a controversy, how about teaching the Koran as an alternative theory to the Bible in Sunday school?"

11/5/2007:

"To whoever wrote: 'Not sure what area of the country some of you are emailing from, but Christianity is not the only religion practiced in the USA. If you want your kids to learn about God, go to church... or maybe YOU would like to actually TALK to your kids about different ideas?!! ' I do go to church and teach my kids at home.... what am I supposed to do when they go to school and their beliefs and values are questioned? Then I have to go back and tell them that the school is wrong... my stepson is in a Christian school and he loves it. Unfortunately, due to my husband's ex-wife, my stepson will be forced to go to the public school. So really, I have no choice in the matter. I teach my kids everything I can especially about faith issues. I dont rely on the schools to teach them what I am. I just would like the reinforcement from the school my son will be attending. And, I wont be getting that from the public school, thats for sure. Oh, and I'm emailing from IL. "

11/1/2007:

"If the schools teach Evolution, Intelligent Design and Science Education they need to teach creation out of the bible.The Bible is a big part of our hystory and needs to be tought as so. "

10/24/2007:

"Not sure what area of the country some of you are emailing from, but Christianity is not the only religion practiced in the USA. If you want your kids to learn about God, go to church... or maybe YOU would like to actually TALK to your kids about different ideas?!! "

10/19/2007:

"First of all the first ammendment says nothing about separation of church and state. If you say something loud enough and long enough though people begin to believe it! There is absolutely not one ounce of evidence to support macro evolution. Even creationist believe in micro-evolution, variation within a kind. Evolution is the new religion of the day. It is forced upon our children without any other options. The schools teach our children what to think, not how to think. There will always be more evidence to support God as the creator than monkey to man!"

10/19/2007:

"I recently took my son to Cranbrook planetarium in Bloomfield Hills, MI and they explain the beginning of the world as a big bang in midst of dust and rocks and energy. The children laughed and said we came from rocks and not monkeys? Some intelligence can be learned from children and we thought we were teaching them!"

10/18/2007:

"Why is this country moving BACKWARDS? The EU just recently voted that ID was not considered science and has suggested its member states not teach it. WAKE UP AMERICA! You are not educating sharp and brillant minds. This country will continue to have to import brain power because our own educational system is not producing it! What a shame!"

10/18/2007:

"Has anyone noticed that our country has severly gone downhill since the early 1960's when prayer was taken out of the school? Next came the bible. Now we do not have any religious freedoms at school - unless of course its atheism. (And yes, that is a religion because you have to have a LOT of faith to believe there is no God.)Now God is being taken out of the government and its roots started long ago. We Christians need to take a stand and fight for our beliefs before its too late! God calls us to Be Courageous and strong! (Joshua 1) Yes, we do need to be loving, forgiving, and not selfrighteous; but when it comes to our children's salvation, its critical that we fight for them! And PRAY! I rented a wonderful DVD from Christiancinema.com called 'America's Godly Heritage.' Its an awesome DVD. And anyone who wants to through around the 'separation of church and state' why dont you please read Thomas Jefferson's full letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association. ' I con! template with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. ' "

10/18/2007:

"Hoo-wee! I can see from the previous responses to this article that this is a very hot topic. Why does there have to be one to the exclusion of another, but on the other hand, why do some parents think it is the school's responsibility to teach every possible fact and figure to our children? The majority of education really should come from home, and if the home disagrees with what's at school, teach what the home believes in contrast to what is at school. I'm quite sure that the teachers will not get bent out of shape by a student having a different foundation of beliefs on a particular issue. NOT EVERYONE IS GOING TO AGREE ON EVERY ISSUE. Let it lie and do your educating on central issues to your belief system AT HOME."

10/18/2007:

"It should be noted that evolution was once banned. In addition, the origin of man would best be left to philosophy and religion classes, not science. Evolution is not science, it is not repeatable nor observable. 2005 research at Harvard shows a common designer. You can argue either way. It is not proof of evolution. To prove evolution or to validate its claims one must prove the transition, not demonstrate the closeness of dna. Your article was obviously biased. Done with your service, thankyou. Disgruntled parent that used to subscribe to Great Schools. "

06/8/2007:

"To Massachusetts 3/30/2006, get a few things straight. Let's put your sky-is-falling scenario in its proper place. '...our next generation of talented students to be conversant with these new sciences, otherwise which they might be denied...' means that people will be discriminated from the scientific fields unless they get on the evolution bandwagon. '...such fields as genetic and family medecine, agricultural crop development, pharmaceutical bio-production, or epidemiology (protection against disease outbreaks.)' GAIN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from evolution. All of those sciences deal with the here and now. Yes, some of it deals with probability of future mutations, but how is the belief that man came from monkeys going to help cure humans today? It's not. Also. where do you get the idea that H5N1 viruses are 'evolving'? The last I looked, you're still talking about a virus. I don't profess to know it all, but from what I understand about viruses, the mutation is all part of its way of doing business. Once it invades a cell, it picks up some of the host cell's genetic code, and when the host cell ruptures, new slighly altered viruses emerge. Otherwise, the virus would be easily defeated by the immune system. Again though, you're still talking about a virus. You're not talking about the virus becoming anything else, are you? Have you got specific proof that a virus of any strain ever became anything other than a virus? By the way, where do scientists think man is headed? What is to become of us? What parts of our bodies are going to change because they don't suit us now or won't suit us in the future? Last I looked, everything is where it should be. Please, don't respond with the 'vestigile' parts ploy as proof that it has happened because that dog doesn't hunt. It's already been proven that the appendix and tailbone are not vestigile. They do serve a purpose. Just because you can survive without them doesn't make them useless--and by the way, you'll have a joyous life without your tailbone. Care to have yours removed to prove me wrong? I remember back in school in the 70s where they tought that our pinkies aren't needed so we'll eventually lose them, and we don't need to have 5 toes so we'll eventually have just 1 big one. As a child, I was astounded at the brilliance of thought, but as an adult I'm shocked at the stupidity! Just what on Earth do you think is going to spur that kind of change on? Shear will of the scientist's mind? Future Evolution (2001, ISBN 0716734966) is a book written by paleontologist Peter Ward. I haven't (and would't) read it, but I read the Wikipedia synopsis. He has got to be the stupidest smart man (or is that the smartest stupid man). Ward questions the potential for humanity to evolve into a new species. According to him, this is incredibly unlikely. For this to happen a human population must isolate itself and interbreed until it becomes a new species.What is this isolating itself nonsense? The last thing I heard, human interbreeding causes all sorts of problems. You won't end up with a new species, only a sick one. Yeah, evolution lends a lot to science. I bet our tax dollars went into his education too...R Freiler Va."

06/5/2007:

"Please go to www.drdino.com and watch the seminars free online. You will see that evolution is impossible. As as for your writing above which states, 'new evidence is the latest of many discoveries in recent years in genetics, biochemistry, geology and paleontology that lend further credence to the theory of evolution'. This is untrue. Every time a scientist tries to publish anything that defies evolutionary teaching they either lose their jobs, are black listed or are refused to publish. Please check out www.drdino.com for your own sake. "

04/9/2007:

"As someone who has elected to follow a course of Biblical study outside of main stream Christianity, it is easy for me to see how large groups of people can be personally invested in a particular viewpoint. With a commitment to looking good, most folks choose a position that seems to fit their personal philosophy and hang on for life. We don’t even want to investigate issues ourselves, let alone teach our children to reason. As a believer in God and creation, I myself have long believed in a six day creation. It was only last week when upon further examination I conceded to the possibility that these might be something other than 24 hour days. So I have to ask my: How do scientists explain the fact that no individual trees are found to be older than about 4,500 years? And, since grass is not supposed to have evolved until after the dinosaurs became extinct, why is grass found in dinosaur dung? Maybe people, scientists, educators, etc. have a sort of vested interest in the evolution theory. Jobs might be lost, loss of face could result, text books would need to be eliminated or corrected, and all because many of who do believe in a Supreme Being won’t buy into an outdated theory. "

01/10/2007:

"Religious beliefs such as creationism and intellient design need to stay within the church where they belong. Evolution should be taught in the schools since it is at least based on logical thought and true science, though not all the answers are in yet. All of those that have been brainwashed to believe otherwise at a very young age need the evolution teachings to straighten them out and prepare them for the real world. We need the schools to present the unbiased, unreligious view until high school. Kids are capable of deciding for themselves at this point in their lives and should be allowed to weigh all ideas. "

12/20/2006:

"Evolution? id? or both? What should be taught in the science classrooms? One year ago, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania school district yesterday from mentioning 'intelligent design' as an alternative to evolutionary theory in a scathing opinion that criticized local school board members for lying under oath and for their 'breathtaking inanity' in trying to inject religion into science classes. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III did not confine his opinion to the missteps of a local school board. Instead he explicitly sought to vanquish intelligent design, the argument that aspects of life are so complex as to require the hand, subtle or not, of a supernatural creator. This theory, he said, relies on the unprovable existence of a Christian God and therefore is not science. The following is the rendered decision. Additionally, here is one of many links with the entire decision (139 pages). http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf IN THE US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TAMMY KITZMILLER, Plantiffs v. DOVER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendants MEMORANDUM OPINION December 20, 2005 Conclusion The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, WE HAVE ADDRESSED THE SEMINAL QUESTION OF WHETHER ID IS SCIENCE. WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT IT IS NOT, and moreover that id cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of id make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator. TO BE SURE, DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS IMPERFECT. HOWEVER, THE FACT THAT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY CANNOT YET RENDER AN EXPLANATION ON EVERY POINT SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A PRETEXT TO THRUST AN UNTESTABLE ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS GROUNDED IN RELIGION INTO THE SCIENCE CLASSROOM or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions. The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the id policy. IT IS IRONIC THAT SEVERAL OF THESE INDIVIDUALS, WHO SO STAUNCHLY AND PROUDLY TOUTED THEIR RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS IN PUBLIC, WOULD TIME AND AGAIN LIE TO COVER THEIR TRACKS AND DISGUISE THE REAL PURPOSE BEHIND THE ID POLICY. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of id have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that id should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. AS STATED, OUR CONCLUSION TODAY IS THAT IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO TEACH ID AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO EVOLUTION IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL SCIENCE CLASSROOM. Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on id, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources. To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the id policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as id . We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs' rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants' actions. Defendants' actions in violation of Plaintiffs' civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs' attorneys' services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs' constitutional rights."

12/20/2006:

"Please read my prior statements. Scientists don't 'claim there is no proof to their theories'. Just the opposite. Evolution is a demonstrable fact. The term 'theory' is not the same as 'educated guess'. Its a description of the mechanics of how an observable phenomenon behaves, as such, it is subject to adjustments as more information comes to light. LIKE I SAID BEFORE, Gravity is a theory, and as a theory it is much much less understood than the theory of evolution. "

12/20/2006:

"Intelligent Design should be taught in schools, public and private...scientist claim there is no proof to their theory isn't that the same as Evolution? Darwin did not prove anything he only theorized."

12/19/2006:

"Its time to call a spade a spade. Creationism and Intelligent Design when taught to the exclusion of evolution are dangerous and should not be taught in schools--public or private. "

11/28/2006:

"The comments I made on 11/27/06 came from North Carolina not California. If you would please correct this so people reading know the majority of responders believing in GOD are from all over. Thank You Wanda L. From NC"