Re: California high school sued over 'intelligent design' class (Not even Philosophy Class?)

Read all about the real story on PandasThumb

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/01/dover_west.html

Just for good laughs, read the first syllabus

http://www.mountainenterprise.com/IntelDesignSyl/IntelDesignSyllabus051209.htm

Notice how they misspelled *Francis Krich* Evolutionist, refering to
Francis Crick, the late evolutionist. How they imagine he could be a
speaker is beyond me..

A local newspaper has all the info you ever wanted, without the
inevitable spin

http://www.mountainenterprise.com/IntellDesign-stories/index.html

The track record is even worse hidden than the track record in Dover.
And of course, trying to teach the science of evolution and ID under the
guise of philosophy is not going to impress many a judge.

And the teacher who is going to present the materials?

    But concern has surfaced about the syllabus presented to the Board
    of Trustees. The instructor of the proposed course, Sharon Lemburg,
    says she wanted "to tell people about the ideas of Intelligent
    Design," but that "Everything happened quickly. I had to have a
    syllabus overnight. I'm not an expert on this subject." Lemburg is
    widely appreciated in the community and by this newspaper as the
    Lady Falcons' successful soccer coach. She is certified to teach
    Geography and Health, with a social science degree. She quickly
    admits she is not certified to teach science.

Read the syllabus, the updated syllabus and the funny history to teach
YEC creationism.

Pim
Janice Matchett wrote:

> Greetings all -
>
> Just got back into town a little bit ago and thought I'd post this
> little item I just found. It may be of interest to most of you. ~
> Janice
>
> "Though personally a believer in Darwinian evolution, I see no problem
> whatever in teaching ID in a philosophy class. Indeed, if one purpose
> of philosophy is to teach people to think about important issues, one
> can make a good case that ID is exactly the sort of thing that should
> be taught.
>
> Notice also a curious inconsistency in the brief. These people claim
> that ID should not be taught in a biology class because it "isn't
> science". Now they object to it being taught in a philosophy class
> because the teacher has no "scientific qualifications"!
>
> So tell me, why does one need scientific qualifications to teach what
> isn't science? This looks like blatant special pleading, and I'm
> pretty sure it won't stand up to scrutiny."
>
> 16 <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1555727/posts?page=16#16>
> posted on *01/10/2006 9:46:20 PM EST* by John Locke
> <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1555727//%7Ejohnlocke/>
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1555727/posts?page=16#16
>
> *Refresh browser when viewing these threads - new comments and links
> are constantly being added:
> California high school sued over 'intelligent design' class (Not even
> Philosophy Class?)
> <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1555727/posts> AP via SJ
> M.News ^
> <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1555727//%5Ehttp://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/13594642.htm>
> *| 11 Jan 06 | JULIANA BARBASSA
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1555727/posts
Received on Tue Jan 10 23:41:07 2006