According to this AP report, a Pennsylvania judge has ruled that teaching Intelligent Design is unconstitutional.
Okay, fine. I happen to think that local school boards ought be free to teach whatever the heck they want, assuming a democratic representation of the parents of those school children, and the local parental will be duly manifested through the school board. So if the local parental will is to teach ID, or the flat earth, or what have you, then so be it. You can always move your kid to another school (that is to say, you ought be able so to do), or teach them from home.
But here's something from the news article that struck me (emphasis added):
The plaintiffs challenging the policy argued that intelligent design amounts to a secular repackaging of creationism, which the courts have already ruled cannot be taught in public schools.
I'm sorry, but isn't the point that creationism cannot be taught is because it is religious, not because it is creationism per se? Therefore if there is a secular, non-religious theory of origins, on what separation grounds can it be rejected? To reject it because it's not up to scientific snuff, sure, go with it. But to reject it because it's . . . well, not religious? Isn't that a moot point?
Yer tax dollars at work.
Posted by Clifton at December 20, 2005 11:04 AM | TrackBackI think you misunderstood your quote. It talks about trying to disquise religion under a secular cover; which totally and utterly failed through blatant lying. The whole point is, that they couldn't prove it was non-religious; they couldn't prove that it had anything to do with science; and definately that it should belong in a biology class.
Btw. it's no wonder our kids are getting a terrible education if you attitude to what's allowed to be taught is more common. That's a scary thought you're providing.
Posted by: Bitman at December 20, 2005 12:01 PMPerhaps I did misunderstand the quote. Then again, how does one prove secularity? That is to say, one would have to prove that it is not something (i.e., religious), which is pretty dang difficult to do, logically speaking.
I haven't followed the case, so maybe the principals have made explicit public statements that contradicted their court testimony. On the other hand, if they lied in court, isn't that perjury? It seems to me--who admittedly is just going off news reports and not off detailed analysis of testimony--that the court is prejudiced against ID and set an unfair probative burden.
Oh, and on the school thing. Hate to break it to ya, but that sort of thing is called representative democracy.
Which I'm all for, by the by.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at December 20, 2005 01:41 PMI stayed up last night reading the court's opinion. It is very thorough at a fairly weighty 139 pages.
I don't think the court set an unfair burden. The court fairly applied the tests required by Supreme Court precedent, which it is obligated to do. Judge Jones is a conservative Republican and not an activist (a point which he pre-emptively addresses on page 137 of the decision).
I'm a creationist, obviously believing and supporting ID. Nonetheless, Judge Jones made the legally correct decision.
If the Supreme Court wants to reverse the endorsement test or the Lemon test, or if the other branches of goverment can somehow rein in the judiciary, then you can get a different result.
I'm in the middle of writing my simplified analysis of Kitzmiller (i.e., for a non-legal audience), which I hope to publish as one of my Mental Meanderings tonight or tomorrow.
Posted by: Dave at December 21, 2005 03:52 PM