Okay, I have been kicked-off twice now. This is my third attempt at posting. Here goes. Pray for me.
The case is about whether or not "intelligent design" now known as "ID Policy" should be taught in the public school system as part of the science curriculum.
In order for there to be further examiniation of the case, the courts had to determine if the premise of "ID" was a science or not. The judge found that intelligent design is a religious, non-scientific proposition. Since it was found to be a religous concept because of its historical roots, the judge applied the Lemon Test. Also, the school board put in writing to the teachers that a statement had to be read to the students that said the scientific theory of evolution was just a theory, not a fact, and presented "intelligent design" as an alternative to the theory as evolution.
Intelligent design is creationism. Creationism is linked to religion. This is endoctrinated in the Christian community. How can you not say intelligent design is religion? If intelligent design had be viewed as a science, this case would have been dismissed. Imagine there being no defense for this.
In applying the Lemon Test: A. does it have a secular purpose. (No) B. Is its primary effect is not to advance religion. (it does) C. the state must not foster excessive government entanglement with regard to religion (it does because of the statement by the school board) D. Endorsement government endorses religion when a reasonable person would view the government action as disapproval of religious choice. (it does) E. Coercion occurs when the government directs formal religous exercise...(it does because of the school board creating a statement)
This case meets the criteria set out in the Lemon Test. The judge had no choice but to rule that "intelligent design is religous, non-scientific proposition, and that teaching intelligent desing in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment." I agree with the decision of the judge because it did meet the criteria of the Lemon Test.
I believe this falls under the category of Domain 1.2. I think the community(external environment)felt compelled to address the social issue at the time.I think they had a direction in mind for the school, but just didn't know how to deal with such a controversial concept. I also don't think they believed it would explode into the magnitue it did which would lead into Domain 1.3 about as a supervisor making good decisons. Had the school board had a better leader/supervisor, maybe things could have been handled more effectively at the local level. One thing I did notice in the reading is that the idea of separation of church and state was used as another aspect of the case, but it didn't go too far because of the Lemon Test and the decision as to whether "ID" is a science.
As an afterthought, doesn't this validate creationism. Shouldn't the Christian community be proud because now it has been recognized by the courts as religious? Doesn't this put creationism on the map? So, what's going to happen in the future?
Trout Fish
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
posted by ironman25
In the beginning something crawled out of the cesspool and eventually turned into man..........what?
I agree with the blogger in that the man-made tests instituted by the courts justify ruling that ID is religious and does violate the Establishment Clause of the first Amendment as not having a secular purpose and would promote the view of one particular religion.
In Edwards v. Aguillard the courts dealt with a law in Louisisana called the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act, which required the if one was taught, the other needed to be taught as well. The courts applied the Lemon test, and didnt have to go further than the first part, but Justice Brennan made an interesting comment after the decision, and I quote " teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction"
Hopefully eventually a theory will come from the scientific community that can give Darwin a run for his money since he has been allowed by the courts to monopolized the origins of humans to date........
I really dont know how this can be used in my school other than the fact that we only teach what is in the curriculum about origins of man, and that theory is from Darwin, so when in Rome we will do as the Romans....to be safe.....
SHOOTER
Based on the Establishment Clause of the first amendment that says there can not be an established religion I feel as if the constitutional rights were violated.
The Lemon test was used as a guideline and went no farther than saying that "ID" is based on religion.
I will have to agree with the blogger based on these factors. Because of this case and cases like it we have to be very careful how discussions are presented in the classroom.
In the beginning......God? Right?Fortunately, the Founding Fathers didn't have the "Lemon Test" to guide the framing of our country and constitution. If you look at all the facts, yes I will have to agree with the blogger that the judge made the correct decision according to this test. But at the same time I like what ironman25 brought up about the Edwards v. Aguillard case making "id" an alternative view to evolution theory. I think with this slant you can make an argument that it doesn't make an "establishment of religion"... just another option. I am afraid to think what is going to happen if we keep shutting God out of our society and schools. I think this goes back to what we discussed about Supervisors being led by our morals.... and what feels right..... this one bothers me a little? What protections can we make to insure that our children don't grow up in a Godless world?
sucram54
I have to agree with the blogger and the court. Since "ID" was found to be a religious concept the Lemon Test would need to be applied. The case does not pass the Lemon Test and therefore is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
However, I also agree that teaching both theories allows our students to take the facts and make a decision for themselves. Isn't that what we are trying to teach them to do so that they can be productive members of society?
Within the school system, this simply means don't teach "ID" unless you want to end up in a future law book.
Hunt74
~Belle~
This is a tough one. It angers me a little to think that Christian views are being pushed to the side. However, taking a non-biased look at the facts, I must agree with the blogger. Yes, the judge made the correct decision. Yes, IT is fundamentally against every scientific principle. Yes, it is just a fancy word for creationism and every aspect of it is rooted in religion. Yes, IT design threatens to replace science with God.
Ironman suggested, based of the case of Edwards v. Aguillared, that we should offer both ideas. I think to put both of these principles in the same “category” could seriously confuse thinking if not taught correctly.
In 1925 Tennessee a science teacher was tried for teaching evolution is his science class. He lost and was fined $100. Sixty-two years later in 1987 teaching creationism was banned on the premise that is violated “separation of church and state”. This is going to be on ongoing battle.
Sucram asks, “What protections can we make to insure that our children don’t grow up in a Godless world?” I guess we would be their protection. It is up to the Christian parents and community to instill these beliefs in our children.
May God have mercy on our souls!!!
APA1906:
On the basis of law, I have to agree with the blogger and the courts. Though I hate that fact that if you dare mention the HOLY SPIRIT, JESUS CHRIST, and/or GOD (the Trinity) in or around a school you risk the devastation of lose your job, I am not willing to forfeit my liberties to do so. We don't get to say what laws we will follow and which ones we will not. We must be accountable to them all.
This one is cut and dry. The school (a government entity) was trying to teach religion ID, ITD, or CRTNSM, whatever you want to call it, there was an excessive government entanglement.
Say that, I love Jesus, and will share with anyone who asks, how good he's been to me.
BE BLESSED
kay82:
On the basis of the law, I would have to agree with the blogger and the court. Intelligent design does refer to a concept based in regligion. In applying the Lemon Test, the courts definitely would find that this was unconstitutional.
However, from a personal stand point, ID Policy is just a theory. Science teachers teach theory all the time. I believe that as long as every theory receives its equal share, then the school is not promoting one regligion over another.
I would apply this to my campus by studying the curriculum of the science department. By analyzing, I will be able to determine whether the ID Policy is being taught.
"In the beginning ..." wait ... then there was a BIG BANG! (that's better!).
Seriously folks, I agree with the blogger that the court made the right decision. ID failed the lemon test because it is based on a supernatural force (GOD) creating the earth. It serveds a religious purpose and would be entangled with the state.
Since ID cannot be proven using the scientific method it is seen as a religious doctrine and not scientific theory.
Techinically, a theory is not able to proven conclusively. If it could be it would be a natural law such as gravity. However, the secular humanists that sit on the high court failed to mention that part.
As a Christian I believe that both theories can coexist, however, it is not the duty of a secular institution to teach what should be taught by an individual's religious institution.
On my campus I will teach and discuss what is in my curriculum document to be on the safe side.
Posted by Fatboyslim
Post a Comment