RE: The El Tajon situation [was Judge Jones sided]

On one hand, I'm flabbergasted at the ham-fisted attempt of bringing ID into
that particular high school. On the other hand, I'm intrigued by the
apparent requirement by the El Tajon school board for the presentation of
arguments for teaching this course. Is this "standard operation procedure"
for school boards and does this apply to all courses? I wonder what
arguments would be required/presented/accepted for the introduction of
controversial courses such as sex education (abstention vs. precaution).

Chuck Vandergraaf

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Robert Schneider
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:46 AM
To: Ted Davis
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: The El Tajon situation [was Judge Jones sided]

Ted,

After reading the news articles and the draft syllabus of the short term
course at El Tajon High School called "Philosophy of Design" and being
offered as a philosophy course, I wonder if we are seeing the next step in
the ID/YEC strategy for getting ID into H.S. courses as science. The course

is advertised as a philosophy course, but it is clear from the syllabus that

the real intent of the course is to teach the "sciences" of YEC and ID. The

syllabus, however improved, has a blatant YEC agenda behind it. What this
course offers is even worse than what the Dover board tried to do with its
warning statement. I hope we do not see a range of "philosophy" courses
being proposed around the country that are really creation science and ID
science courses.

I agree with you that H.S. courses that deal with philosophical issues,
including the philosophy of science, should be encouraged. I also think
that in a science course (college or H.S.), when the nature of science and
what and how scientists work are presented, ID ought to be presented in this

context so that students would be able to see that ID has yet to offer a
scientific support for its theology. However, there may well be a constant
struggle to keep philosophy courses or units within courses freed of the
blatant ID, really YEC, agenda that is apparent in the El Tajon course.

In one respect I'm glad that the El Tajon course is such a blatant example
of manipulation of "philosophy," as it should be much easier to be
challenged in the courts. It appears to be another example of a course
thrown together at the last minute, to be taught by a person who admits to
being unqualified but sympathetic to the subject matter, statements going
out to parents, etc., we know the story--presumably to make it more
difficult to challenge it legally. I would like to see a judge issue an
injunction against the course until the merits of it can be reviewed.

Bob Schneider

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
To: <drsyme@cablespeed.com>; <dopderbeck@gmail.com>; <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: Judge Jones sided with the Discovery Institute and ruledagainst

the Dove...

>>>> <drsyme@cablespeed.com> 01/10/06 11:59 AM >>>asks:
>
>
> What if the Dover school board had wanted to get ID into
> the public schools, by proposing that ID be taught in
> philosophy classes instead of science classes? Assuming
> the motivations otherwise were the same, would ID in
> philosophy classes violate the establishment clause?
>
> ***
>
> Ted replies:
>
> This issue was directly address last spring at a public symposium nearby.
> The speaker was the lead plaintiff attorney from the ACLU, and his opinion
> is as follows: ID can be discussed in philosophy or religion classes, as
> far
> as the ACLU is concerned; in those classes, other philosophical and
> religious perspectives can also be discussed. Thus, the ACLU opposes only
> ID in science classes.
>
> This IMO is highly ironic: it's OK to discuss ID in class, as long as it
> isn't the class whose subject is most closely related to the issues
> contested by advocates of ID.
>
> His opinion is part of the basis for my opinion, namely that ID is a
> legitimate topic in secular journals and books devoted to philosophy of
> science; and philosophy of science can be discussed in science classes.
> This is where Judge Jones went wrong and ruled too broadly, BUT NEITHER
> THE
> DEFENSE NOR THE PROSECUTION made this point, so he can't be blamed for
> this.
>
> Furthermore, Ed Larson agrees with me--at least he agreed with me as the
> trial was still on, before Jones' ruling. (I don't know what he thinks
> right now, after the ruling.) And, which is a great surprise to many no
> doubt, Eugenie Scott of NCSE also conceded to me one day in the court
> gallery that a science teacher can discuss ID in class, as long as they
> have
> a clear secular purpose for doing so. Thus the Dover ruling might go
> beyond
> even what Eugenie Scott thinks.
>
> Ted
>
>
Received on Thu Jan 12 15:55:13 2006