On 20 December 2005 Scott Lilienfeld wrote: > I'm of course pleased to hear about the judge's decision, although some > news outlets, like CNN, are already describing it as "banning" ID theory > from being mentioned in biology classes (see www.cnn.com). > > Does anyone know if this is accurate, or is it a > mischaracterization? Much as I feel strongly that ID theory should not > be taught as an equally viable alternative to Darwinian natural > selection in biology classes, I would not want biology teachers to be > muzzled into not even mentioning or discussing it.
The UK press is inconsistent on this. The Times and Independent report that ID cannot be taught in science classes. The Daily Telegraph has it that ID cannot be mentioned. The Guardian (online, 20 Dec, print edition 21 Dec) has both versions. As Scott said, it would be worrying if the ruling was that ID cannot be *mentioned* in science classes. What would happen if (as is quite likely) a student asks about it? Would he/she have to be told that's not something that can be discussed here? I see nothing wrong with the teacher answering the question by giving a brief explanation of the ID notion, and then say that as this is essentially a religious concept it cannot be taken further in a science class. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] London Times: A United States judge ruled yesterday that "intelligent design" cannot be taught as part of a school's science class. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1948132,00.html Independent: The campaign to try to force schools in the United States to teach an alternative to Darwinism has suffered a severe set-back after a judge ruled that to do so was a violation of the constitution. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article334460.ece Daily Telegraph: In the biggest courtroom clash on evolution for 80 years, a Pennsylvania judge yesterday ruled that schools cannot mention divine intervention in biology classes as an alternative to Darwinian evolution. The judge's decision to ban any reference to so-called "intelligent design", which maintains that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, is another blow to Christian hardliners in America. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/21/wus21.xml The Guardian (online, 20 December): A US federal judge today ruled that "intelligent design" - the belief that a higher power, rather than evolution, created life - cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania school district. The Guardian (21 December): A courtroom battle seen as a test case for the teaching of science in America ended in a decisive victory for evolution yesterday when a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled that it was unconstitutional to teach "intelligent design" in biology class. http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1671683,00.html --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
