PHIL121 said:
Here is the text of the statement that the ACLU argues is unconctitutional to be read in Dover, PA schools....
Text of the intelligent design statement Dover, Pa., teachers were instructed to read to their students:
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, “Of Pandas and People,†is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments
...American "Civil Liberities" my A@#! :evil:
HARRISBURG  Near the end of her stay on the witness stand during Day 8 of the Dover Panda Trial Wednesday, Bertha Spahr, head of the Dover Area High School science department, was asked whether she had considered how school board member Bill Buckingham felt when she accused him of “pushing a personal agenda†by forcing the district to adopt creationism.
Before she could answer, a lawyer for the plaintiffs rose and objected, partly on the grounds of relevance.
In other words, nobody gives a rat’s hindquarters whether Spahr may have hurt Buckingham’s feelings, legally speaking.
The truth of the matter, of course, is he was pushing a personal agenda, and if his feelings were hurt, well, that’s too bad because he’s never given the impression that he’s ever cared about anyone else’s feelings.
The judge sustained the objection, and we never got to learn whether Spahr cared about hurting Buckingham’s feelings.
And speaking of hurt feelings, you had to feel bad for Dover Supt. Richard Nilsen and the rest of the defendants, sitting in the gallery  on the defendant’s side of courtroom No. 2  when Brian Alters, a professor of science education and expert in teaching evolution, started talking.
It got ugly.
The defendants appeared to be relieved when Alters took the stand and said he taught at McGill University.
McGill is in Montreal.
That’s Canada.
You could almost sense the relief among the defendants. Canada? How bad could it get?
And then, the good doctor started testifying and in so many words, accused the school board and administrators, essentially, of child abuse.
And he was right.
Teaching intelligent design creationism in science class wasn’t just a bad idea, he said. It wasn’t just bad teaching. It was “probably the worst thing I’ve heard of in science education.â€Â
And it got worse.
He went through the four-paragraph statement that an administrator reads to drowsy kids at the beginning of their exploration of evolution and, line-by-line, tore it apart.
Let’s see. Consulting my notes, I see the words “terrible,†“dead wrong,†“wrong.†It went on and on.
He read statements from leading science and science education organizations, rejecting the notion of teaching intelligent design creationism, a nonscientific idea, as an alternative of the theory of evolution, one of the most well-supported theories in all of science.
Suggesting that intelligent design creationism is a viable alternative to evolution does the opposite of what the defenders of Dover say. It does not promote critical thinking, Alters said. It does not teach students to approach topics with an open mind. It does not contribute to student’s education in any way.
If anything, it reinforces misconceptions students may have about the subject of evolution.
It does, essentially, the opposite of educating. It contributes to ignorance.
Now, they may have some different ideas about education up in Dover, but I don’t think that’s one of them.
As Day 8 of the trial convened, the media herd had thinned somewhat. The woman from Paramount Pictures was gone, as were many of the magazine and book writers who had attended previous sessions. They were replaced by a woman from the New Yorker, from whom we can expect a sweeping, insightful, intelligent look at the controversy that’s sure to make the good denizens of Dover look like a bunch of doofuses, and a guy from Rolling Stone, who was present, I’m guessing, just in case Britney Spears offers her learned opinion on the case.
Now, there’s a class assignment: Britney Spears, evidence against intelligent design or what?
