In a startling statement, President Bush has supported
teaching intelligent design along with evolution in schools. Here is my
Religion Clause blog on it with link to coverage
In a message dated 8/2/2005 9:23:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the
primary ID advocates themselves continually say that they don't want ID to be
taught in science classrooms. In fact, when my side says that they do they
throw a fit about how we're
They don't want ID to be taught. Following the decision of Judge William Overton in McLean v. Arkansas, anything can be taught as science so long as there is some science behind the stuff -- a body of research and a general consensus that the hypothesis works to some degree.
Intelligent design is
The Texas Freedom Network released a report yesterday on the Bible
study curriculum offered by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in
Public Schools and used in some 37 states, written by Mark Chancey, a
Biblical studies professor at Southern Methodist University. This
report makes quite
There was a story in yesterday's NYT about a group placing "Bible" classes
in various public schools. Apparently, the content includes assertions
about intelligent design. So it would appear there is a mutli-pronged
approach.
To me, what is most interesting about the President's statement
I wrote an analysis of this curriculum that appeared in the Journal of Law and Education
Paterson, F. R. A. (2003). Anatomy of a Bible course curriculum. Journal of Law and Education, 32(1), 41-65.
Frances R. A. Paterson, J.D., Ed.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Educational Leadership
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 8/2/2005 9:23:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the primary ID advocates themselves continually say that they
don't want ID to be taught in science classrooms. In fact, when my side
says that they do they throw a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wrote an analysis of this curriculum
that appeared in the Journal of Law and Education
Paterson, F. R. A. (2003). Anatomy of a Bible course curriculum.
Journal of Law and Education, 32(1), 41-65.
Would you agree with Chancey's assessment of the curriculum?
Ed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any thoughts on whether Pres Bush will try to use No Child Left
Behind as a base of power to force public schools to teach ID? Could
the Bush Administration put in place regulations under NCLB that would
do as much?
The original language of the NCLB contained
Using NCLB to require a change in curriculum would be a federal power grab in education quite unprecedented. Heck, the federal establishment was nervous about simply making available lesson plans used in schools through the old (soon-to-be-gone) ERIC Library System, and both parties and all
Yes. I lacked his training and expertise in theology and archaeology and so focused on the constitutional infirmities of the curriculum and how to avoid those infirmities. Frances Paterson
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To
Title: Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design
Because the federal courts have addressed the question of evolution curriculum in a number of opinions, has not the issue now been federalized? So, though Ed is correct that curriculum is a local issue, but at least one aspect of it has been
Well, at one time, most issues were local issues. Now we have federal
regulation of local land use under RLUIPA, with the Bush Administration
defending Congress's power to regulate localland use law. This
Administration is constantly touting No Child Left Behind. If there
is an opening,
An issue is not federalized simply because the federal Constitution has
been applied to a state.
Marci
In a message dated 8/2/2005 10:13:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because the federal courts have addressed the question of
evolution curriculum in a number
At one level I don't
understand what the problem is with the Santorum Amendment, which could easily
be interpreted as a mandate to teach students the difference between analysis
founded on genuine science (e.g., evolution) from analysis that is, from a
scientific perspective, simply and
In a message dated 8/2/2005 9:47:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For a
more thorough analysis, see my
essay about it or the full report
itself. I have a hard time believing that this curriculum could survive a
court challenge. Even without the obvious
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 8/2/2005 9:47:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For a more thorough analysis, see my
essay about it or the full report
itself. I have a hard time believing that this curriculum could survive
a court
Prof. David DeWolf has an excellent article on "teaching the controversy." See DeWolf, Teaching the Origins Controversy: Science, Or Religion, Or Speech, 2000 Utah L.Rev. 39.
As always, the solution to the culture war over the public school curriculum is parental choice and equal funding for all
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 8/2/2005 10:02:43 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
They claim that they only want the "evidence against
evolution" taught, but this is primarily a tactical maneuver. Their
stated goal remains not only equal time,
In a message dated 8/2/2005 11:26:50 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think
you missed my point, Jim. Why on earth does the American Center for Law and
Justice, an organization for whom you are senior counsel, endorse a curriculum
that is A) obviously sectarian
The difficulty comes when anti-evolution advocates (I'm trying to avoid inflammatory labels) put forth what they regard to be the criticisms of evolution, rather than searching science journals for the same issues. There was -- still is -- a solid and good debate about rates of evolution, and the
I oppose teaching creationism, including intelligent design, in science courses. However, I think this topic should be an appropriate subject for an elective in HS, especially if taught from the historical or sociological or political perspective. I don't even get very exorcised about biology
In a message dated 8/2/2005 12:05:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My main
problem with the ID folk is that they are pushing it as an alternative to
evolution and claiming that evolution is simply wrong rather than admitting
evolution has happened and is
Evolution is hardly a "hypothesis" and while the age of the earth may
not be certain, anyone who insists it is only about 6,000 years old
(using modern 365 day, 24 hour a day) years is simply not dealing with
reality or truth.
The US used to lead the world in science and engineering advances.
Title: Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design
Ed:
Cause and effect correlations are extremely complicated on issues such as these, since there are a variety of reasons that American students may under perform. Im always suspicious of the use of such data, regardless of who offers it.
Re Rick's commentary, this is more than just a "culture war," it is a constitutional
war. From a Court precedent which Chief Justice Rehnquist and the ACLJ (just
a guess) do not accept:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least
this: ... No tax in any
In a message dated 8/2/2005 12:07:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, if
appropriately written and taught, I not only agree that it could pass
constitutional muster, I think it would be an excellent course to offer. But
this curriculum is clearly not
But isn't that exactly what the First Amendment means when it says "Congress shall make no law?" It's not odd at all, to me. It is historically, patriotically, and liberty-confirminglycomforting.
Ed Darrell'
DallasFrancis Beckwith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ed:Cause and effect correlations are
In a message dated 8/2/2005 12:33:41 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The US
used to lead the world in science and engineering advances. If we insist
on going down the road of anti-science and pseudo-science, we will continue to
undermine one of the most
In a message dated 8/2/2005 12:07:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
yet it's
trumpeted as proof of the bible's accuracy in the very curriculum that the
ACLU endorses.
Art, are you there? Has the ACLU finally been freed from the dark
side?
Jim Henderson
Senior
In a message dated 8/2/2005 12:07:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If teh
course is about the history of false ideas that have long been disproven, I
suppose one might do that.
You have a harsh distemper for Young Earth Creationists.
Yet you seem not to realize
Folks: Please keep things as calm as possible here. People
will sometimes misspell others' names (as Eugene Volokh, I can assure
you of that). People will write responses and not tell the responded-to
party about it. (It's not clear to me that there is a social norm about
whether such
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 8/2/2005 12:07:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, if appropriately written and taught, I not only agree
that it could pass constitutional muster, I think it would be an
excellent course to offer. But this
On Aug 2, 2005, at 1:31 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote: But maybe I'm naive to think that the hostility to any possibility of the supernatural in some realms of the scientific community can be overcome. Brad Pardee__There are many scientists who also believe
In a message dated 8/2/05 1:34:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 8/2/2005 12:07:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
yet it's trumpeted as proof of the bible's accuracy in the very curriculum that the ACLU endorses.
Art, are you there? Has the ACLU
In a message dated 8/2/2005 2:16:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is
an illogical conclusion. How does it follow that because I think that young
earth creationISM has been disproven that therefore I have a "harsh distemper"
for young earth creationISTS?
Well, I see a Bradley letter (a pdf linked from the legality section of the web site) but it is dated 1999 and since my article did not appear until 2003 it can hardly be a response to it. Frances one-T Paterson
___
To post, send message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 8/2/2005 1:57:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This curriculum is so bad that it wouldn't pass muster in a
church sunday school where the pastor was even decently educated.
Of course, decent education is
In a message dated 8/2/2005 2:30:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So your
answer to my question of whether you just don't care that your organization is
endorsing a curriculum packed with lies and banalities and presenting the work
of frauds and cranks as
Very interesting. Frances "Polemic Author" Paterson
I would suggest that list members read my article (available on Westlaw and Lexis) and judge for themselves whether Professor Bradley remarks are fair and objective. And I have a funny feeling I already know who will conclude that they are.
In a message dated 8/2/2005 2:45:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Very interesting. Frances "Polemic Author"
PatersonI would suggest that list members read my article (available
on Westlaw and Lexis) and judge for themselves whether Professor Bradley
remarks
Samuel V wrote:
I'd like to address the issue more generally, rather than focus on a
specific curriculum which I have not seen.
I would agree with Professor Brayton that any curriculum what was
designed to give scientific support for a specific religious
tradition, whether it be Joshua
Title: Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design
But given incorporation, it would follow that no one shall make no law. In addition, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which expands religious liberty by banning discrimination based on religion in the workplace (if involved with interstate
There is a difference between grants of power and limits on that power, isn't there? At least with respect to what Congress can address. Merely because something is within the Beckwithian concept of "federal concern" does not give Congress the power to act. Even when Congress has the power to
Mr. Bradley's analysis in 1999 said: "The specific texts selected for this Course fall well within the range of objectivity, and steerwell clear of appearing either to promote or disparage the truth of the Bible. The selections are representative of the Bible as a whole. They pertain to the better
At 08:43 PM 8/2/2005 +0100, Paul Diamond wrote:
Dear All,
Not sure how this works; can you confirm if you have received this? I am Paul
Diamond from the real Cambridge (UK, not MA)!
This was a recent case in our Court of Appeal Copsey v WBB; you may find it
interesting and ignore the Euro
That's true, there are those who do believe
in God, and it's also true that this does not make intelligent design science.
That's why I referred tosome realms of the scientific community.
I'm just saying that, among those who ARE hostile to the idea of
the supernatural, there is no explanation
Title: Message
I applaud Rick's recommendation of the DeWolf article,
below, which I used in a follow-up piece,attemptingperhaps
simplisticadvocacy on public school teaching (55 Okla. L. Rev.
613):
However science is defined, there is
scientific support for the big bang theory as
Title: Message
Dan Gibbens
asks,
In this
context, who can argue with this W quote: I think that part of education
is to expose people to different schools of thought, Bush said. Youre asking
me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is
yes.
Does this
Such demonstrated conflict and confusion is the result of any attempt to
establish "religion" by law. Recognize the wisdom of the men at both national
and state levels who drafted and approved the wording of First Amendment's
religion clauses as written:
1. The First Amendment was a
As Eugene patiently and consistently reminds us, this list
is not made up of scientists or theologians. Though my legal interests lie
in constitutional law, I make my living by representing a number of genetics
companies. I consistently run into scientists who reject Darwin's theory
of
Ed,
I'm sorry if I misunderstood the tenor of some of the
arguments being made on this list. From my quick preview of the posts I
gained the impression that some had articulated the notion that real scientists
rejected intelligent design or the idea of a supreme creator as unscientific and
52 matches
Mail list logo
