that Intelligent Design is false. These idiots are up the road from me. I'll bet the district will have to raise taxes to pay for the lawsuits. Almost half of the school board has resigned so far over this.

U.S. School District Defends Evolution Teaching Plan

Wed Jan 5, 7:14 PM ET U.S. National - Reuters

By Jon Hurdle

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A Pennsylvania school district on Wednesday rejected charges that plans to include references to an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution in high school biology classes would be illegal.

The Dover Area School District near Harrisburg is the first in the United States to introduce "Intelligent Design," a theory that the natural world is so complex it must have been made by an intelligent being, rather than occurring by chance, as held by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

The district was sued by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State on Dec. 14 over plans to teach the theory starting next week. The lawsuit is the first to challenge the teaching of Intelligent Design, which the groups say violates the Constitutional separation of church and state.

The civil rights groups argued that "Intelligent Design" is a thinly veiled version of creationism -- the belief that the earth was made by God. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1980s that teaching creationism in public schools would violate the constitutional separation of church and state.

The school district said in Wednesday's court filing that its "biology curriculum policy does not advance religion." Instead, it informs "students about the existing scientific controversy surrounding Darwin's Theory of Evolution."

Christian conservatives, who played an important role in the re-election of President Bush, have been pressing for decades for creationism to be taught in schools.

Lawyers for the school board said that neither creationism nor "Intelligent Design" will be taught to students, and that no religious beliefs will be taught.

Intelligent Design does not presuppose any supernatural being, and is not creationism, the school district said in its response, saying the school district will also continue to teach evolution.

On Jan. 13, teachers will be required to read a statement saying that Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view, and that if students want to read more about it, they can read a book called "Of Pandas and People" which they can find in the school library.

Witold Walczak, legal director of the ACLU in Pennsylvania, said the plaintiffs will not seek an order to stop the policy being implemented next week and hope the case will go to trial in the coming months.

"This is the first legal challenge to Intelligent Design, and that alone makes it important," Walczak said. "If we lose, we really fear that you will see school districts all across the country teaching Intelligent Design."

I don't think that a public school should teach anything that is faith based.

However, since there are so many gaping holes in Darwins theory it should be taught with the emphasis on THEORY.

You can convince most folks that man evolved from apes, but where did the apes come from?

Lemurs.

You can convince most folks that man evolved from apes, but where did the apes come from?

and if we evolved from apes .... why are there still apes?

I don't recall being taught either evolutionism or creationism in school. I think, in biology, we studied life in present tense. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention.

Here the crappy thing; Church/State separation should not really be applicable here. Why? Because every view of evolution is a theory at thispoint. Nobody Knows for sure. Some believe in primordial soup, some believe in a intelligent God, some believe in a combination, some believe that there is an unexplainable force which causes subatomic particles to behave the way they do, and that this force is what God truly represents. But these are all theories. If the schools decide that they feel the need to teach students about the origins of existence, then they should have to present a number of theories OR they shouldn't teach it at all. The opportunity is there for all students (in their own school libraries)to learn about the different approaches to life. Their parents can , if they feel the need to, nudge them in the direction that is consistent with their beliefs.

Bottom Line....... learning about evolution/creationiusm cannot compete with daydreaming about the girl sitting next to you. These "impressionable young minds" are not getting their crazy ideas from theirt biology teachers. Intelligent people are going to develop their own opinion based their questions, beliefs, and challenges to what they are being taught.

How dare that school challenge students to think for themselves and question the "facts" that are shoved down their throats 8 hours a day.

The school board's lack of conformity is appalling! The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the ACLU must act NOW to end this rebellion lest others be encouraged to think for themselves and act independently of the bureaucracy! I say the Governor should send the State Police to restore order.

Some here are confusing the lay meaning of theory with its scientific meaning. The lay meaning of theory is essentially hypothesis, or hunch. The scientific meaning of theory is an hypothesis supported by known evidence. Darwin's theory of evolution is fairly old and was modified in the 1930s by modern genetics and is now called the new synthesis, but people still commonly refer to the model as a whole as Darwinian evolution. The hypothetical bases of the new synthesis are supported by the known biological, physical, geological, etc., data, and so this model therefore has the status of a theory; e.g., theory in the context of a complex of hypotheses supported by observations and facts. So saying something 'is just a theory' means it has strong empirical support from observed facts, otherwise, it could not legitimately be refered to as a theory. If you want to disparage a scientific model don't say 'it's just a theory,' becuase then you are making a strong case for the model; say 'it's just an hypothesis,' that way you cast more doubt on the model: but one couldn't plausibly claim that about the Darwinian model both because of it's success in explaining biologiical phenomena and the close fit of known biological data to Darwinian principles. In contrast to Darwinian theory, intelligent design is a weak hypothesis which states that since complex information is found in genomes etc., therefore an intelligent designer must have designed them. Now the trick would be to prove these claims experimentally to strengthen the hypothesis. Intelligent design, or ID, is therefore not a theory but an hypothesis, and should not replace standard Darinian theory till it takes on the status of theory based on support by evidence based on observations.

Additionally, humans didn't come from apes, humans are apes; talking, hairless apes. Humans evolved from a proto-ape ancestor as did other apes, such as chimps and gorillas. All apes, humans, chimps, gorillas, etc., are the evolved, mutated, morphed progeny of their common proto-ape ancestor. This is why the human genome, gross morphology, and vast biochemical gene product constellation is so identical among apes and humans. In a purely scientific context, divorced from politics and traditional metaphysical beliefs, humans, chimps, and gorillas would be classified in a common genus based on morphology and genetics alone.

There you go, telling the truth again. I wonder how many will jump up and "say it ain't so?"

Great post.

Rereading the article author's wording a bit he states, "'Intelligent Design,' a theory that the natural world is so complex it must have been made by an intelligent being." By this description ID is in no way a theory, nor is it even an hypothesis when described that way, but at most a conjecture.

Claiming evolution can't happen by chance is shown to be false by a recent occurence we've all heard of, the tsunami in the south pacific. Last night I heard of an island where 90 of the population was knocked out (killed). In biology we call this a population bottleneck. Evolution is most broadly defined as the change in the frequency of alleles (genes) over time. In this example the frequencey of alleles of the unfortunate people of that island were drastically altered in one fell swoop, and in a most random, arbitrary way. It occured completely by chance, contrary to what ID'ers claim. The ten percent of islanders will have a drastically different statistical mix of alleles as compared to the previous, larger population. Over time, provided the survivors interbreed mostly with one another, a noticably different phenotype will emerge in subsequent generations based on their altered gene pool; all accomplished by chance.

Uh...

What? I couldn't keep up with you there Cigar_primate... (c:

Here's some links that can explain it better'n me. Population bottlenecks, the founder effect, and extinctions go a long way in explaining how gene frequencies can become drastically changed:

http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/bottleneck.html 

http://www.erin.utoronto.ca/~w3env100y/env/ENV100/sci/biodiv_loss_03.htm 

Another random phenomena presently occuring is global warming, which will result in altered gene frequencies in species based on altered geographical distibutions.

It was I who confused the lay meaning of "theory" with it's scientific meaning. Perhaps "approach" or "opinion" is more suitable.

I still think students should have the opportunity to study different "approaches" to determining the origin of life and humanity; but I'm not so sure that it is the schools job to expose them to these opinions.

Besides, did the "elvis shaped fungus stain" on my shower wall just appear there naturally? Of course not; it is Elvis himself reincarnated as a fungus..........how does evolution explain this????

CigarPrimate writes:

"In a purely scientific context, divorced from politics and traditional metaphysical beliefs, humans, chimps, and gorillas would be classified in a common genus based on morphology and genetics alone. "

At a time when human society is generally seen to be breaking down and that people everywhere are behaving more like animals every day, treating each other likewise, is it wise to fuel this descent by actually saying to people - especially to teens and 20-somethings without much hope - "oh, you're really only an animal anyway?"

If believing you've been created for a purpose instead of being an accident of biology is misguided and foolish, then by all means call me a fool!

Seems to me that some hold Darwin as God...

He has a little bumper sticker just like the Christians do...only with feet...he must be a god...or at least he is a divine prophesier of a god??? In any case, he is no different than those that taught the word of God...it is all FAITH based. Science has yet to conclusively prove Darwin's ideas.

In light of this late developement, I'm protesting his belief/theory of evolution based upon my Constitutional right to separation of Church and State.

But that's just me..............Marla


:)

If I may be so bold as to translate for Uber Chimp:
I believe Human DNA and Chimpanzee DNA is 99.9% identical. At some point in history (many thousands of years ago), man's DNA mutated to our current cigar smokin' being.
It is genetic mutation from a common ancestor that determined our fate. If you want to take it further back in time: Human DNA and a rat's DNA is 90% identical. We had a common ancestor at some point.

By the way, I was educated for 12 years in a parochial school system, and I was taught Darwinianism, not Creationism in SCIENCE class.

Yes, my bad, I should have said talking, hairless, 'cigar loving' apes-R-us. If you want to see the utter kinship between us and our dear cousins the chimps, take a gander at the site listed below:

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/chr.bk1.html 

I believe chimp proto-ape chromosome 2 & pseudo-3 fused somewhere along the way to form proto-Homo cigaricus chromosome 2. For striking homology, notice chimp and human chromosome 3. They're virtually indistinghishable.

I love it when he talks Deoxyribonucleic Acid

WE were created by little green men.

2 points--
The first is that evolution does not say man evolved from apes, but instead that a long, long time ago there was a common ancestor to both men and apes....and that the two species split...

The second is that there is a severe problem with the word 'theory' in regards to evolution. A theory within science is a hypothesis that can be tested, but as of now not proven (though in order to still 'scientifically' be considered a theory, the evidence and what not must currently suggest that it is true...). This is different than how we use theory in everyday life---which is scientifically equivalent to a "hypothesis." Thus, no matter what your beliefs are, G-d creating the world in 7 days is, scientifically, a hypothesis (as science can not 'test' it--this doesn't lesson it at all....). Another 'theory' (scientifically) is Gravity.

Just my two cents