POL - I dont think I see anything wrong with this.

[Flasch186]

They were up front about what the class was going to teach. They never touted it as a science class, as far as I can tell. So isnt this exactly what I have said I would accept as being acceptable in public schools. That ID is a philosophy and as such should be taught in philosophy classes or religious studies classes....as well as any other religion.


Calif. School Sued Over Evolution Class

By JULIANA BARBASSA, Associated Press Writer Tue Jan 10, 11:05 PM ET

FRESNO, Calif. - A rural high school teaching a religion-based alternative to evolution was sued Tuesday by a group of parents who said the class should be stopped because it violates the U.S. Constitution.
ADVERTISEMENT

Frazier Mountain High in Lebec violated the separation of church and state while attempting to legitimize the theory of "intelligent design" by introducing it as a philosophy class, according to the federal lawsuit filed by parents of 13 students. The teacher is also a minister's wife.

"The course was designed to advance religious theories on the origins of life, including creationism and its offshoot, 'intelligent design,'" the lawsuit said. "Because the teacher has no scientific training, students are not provided with any critical analysis of this presentation."

The suit was filed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which successfully blocked Dover, Pa., schools last month from using science courses to advance the theory that living things are so complex they must have been designed by a higher being.

Similar battles are being fought in Georgia and Kansas over the controversial subject.

The suit filed on behalf of 11 parents against the El Tejon Unified School District names its superintendent, the course teacher and school board members as defendants.

Superintendent John Wight, who did not immediately return a phone call for comment, said last week that the class, "Philosophy of Design," was not being taught as science and was an opportunity for students to debate the controversial issue.

Defendant Kitty Jo Nelson, one of two school board trustees who opposed the class, said the costs of the lawsuit would ultimately deprive students. "I'm extremely disappointed and saddened," she said.

Fifteen students were enrolled in the class in Lebec, a town of 1,285 in the mountains between the agricultural Central Valley and Los Angeles, about 75 miles south.

The five-member school board was divided when it learned about the class last month and discovered three guest lecturers were scheduled in support of intelligent design but none for evolution.

The class is taught by social studies teacher Sharon Lemburg, whose husband is an Assembly of God pastor.

An initial course description sent to parents in December said it would examine "evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological and Biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin's philosophy is not rock solid."

The El Tejon district's Board of Trustees approved the course 3-2 with a revised syllabus in a Jan. 1 session, during which board members had to vote up or down on the entire winter session curriculum.

Classes started two days later with a class plan that relied solely on videos, not guest speakers.

The Washington, D.C.-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State said that with one exception the course "relies exclusively on videos that advocate religious perspectives and present religious theories as scientific ones."

The lawsuit filed on behalf of 11 parents seeks a temporary restraining order to halt the four-week class in its second week

[Greyroofoo]

If this is a public school, then I am against public dollars being used to push a religious agenda.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

If this is a public school, then I am against public dollars being used to push a religious agenda.

I guess, I WOULD want this mixed in as one philosophy of many, and then have as many as possible taught and touched on, in the same class.

[flounder]

Even though they are calling it a philosophy class, the teacher is using it to advocate a creationist position. This is shown by the description of the class.

• Philosophy of Intelligent Design: “This class will take a close look at evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological, and Biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin’s philosophy is not rock solid. This class will discuss Intelligent Design as an alternative response to evolution. Topics that wlll be covered are the age of the earth, a world wide flood, dinosaurs, pre-human fossils, dating methods, DNA, radioisotopes, and geological evidence. Physical and chemical evidence will be presented suggesting the earth is thousands of years old, not billions. The class will include lecture discussions, guest speakers, and videos. The class grade will be based on a position paper in which students will support or refute the theory of evolution.”

[bronconick]

If it's an elective course, I really don't care.

Almost every high school makes you take science classes, which is where the objection to teaching ID in it comes from. If it's an elective that 20 kids want to, well, IMO waste a semester on, that's fine with me. Can't be any worse then the semester in high school that I took where all we read was the Lord of the Rings and took tests on the chapters etc...


Although, based on that syllabus, I'd hate to guess the grade of any student supporting evolution at the end of the semester.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Can't be any worse then the semester in high school that I took where all we read was the Lord of the Rings and took tests on the chapters etc...

I want to go to your high school..

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Mustang

I want to go to your high school..

Would you rather go that high school, or the one where the girls are making out?

[clintl]

The course description makes it sound as if it is not purely a philosophy course, but is delving into science as well. Plus, there's the little fact that the teacher does not possess the academic qualifications to teach either philosophy or science.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by clintl

Plus, there's the little fact that the teacher does not possess the academic qualifications to teach either philosophy or science.

Are you assuming that because it says the teacher is a 'minister's wife'? Does being married to a minister automatically disqualify somebody from teaching in the public schools?

[Solecismic]

Taxpayer money should not go to support a religion class in any guise. Let parents pay for junior's religious education.

[sterlingice]

You know, I'm with Flasch on this one. It's an elective and no one's being force to take it. Furthermore, it's not like you can take this and have it replace Chem or something.

SI

[flounder]

http://www.mountainenterprise.com/In...alse_Info.html

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.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Are you assuming that because it says the teacher is a 'minister's wife'? Does being married to a minister automatically disqualify somebody from teaching in the public schools?

No, I read about her lack of qualifications in the Sacramento Bee article this morning (which was reprinting an LA Times article). The teacher is a regular teacher at the school, but not of the relevant subjects. Looking it over again, here is the paragraph from the article I was referring and a link to the LA Times article. It appears that the lawsuit is alleging she's not qualified to teach those subjects, so it might not be as ironclad as I remember (social science can cover quite a bit of territory). But it seems pretty unlikely that with those degrees, she's qualified to teach science, assuming that information is accurate.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...ostemailedlink

The course, which began Jan. 3 and is scheduled to run for one month, is being taught by Sharon Lemburg, a special education teacher with a bachelor of arts in physical education and social science, according to the lawsuit.

The suit adds that Lemburg "has no training or certification in the teaching of science, religion or philosophy," and is "the wife of the minister for the local Assembly of God Church, a Christian fundamentalist church, and a proponent of a creationist world view."

[clintl]

It sounds like the school board and administration rushed into this without examining the course content properly.

[Drake]

Meh. A degree in a social science is more than enough qualification to teach Intelligent Design. This sort of course reminds me of most of the offerings in the History & Philosophy of Science department in college (from which I took, among other things, The Occult in Western Civilization -- and found I knew more about the subject than my professor).

As a philosophy course, I don't have a problem with this sort of thing, as long as similar one-month electives from other potential subjects of interest are offered. Bottom line is that this provides a venue for kids interested in the arguments of ID to get some reasonable instruction (that isn't culled from the polemic morass of the internet, which can be pretty damned daunting if you've never Googled "Intelligent Design").

Hey, I'm always a fan of teaching kids stuff that they show an interest in. If it's ID, just don't teach it in science class.

(My only objection here is Health class. I hate Health class. Hated it in HS. Why? Because it was like a four month prick tease -- always promising to tell us something useful and revelatory about sex and boobies without ever delivering the goods except in the most general terms. I vaguely recall a Melissa Gilbert movie and an uncomfortable football coach/Health teacher telling us that there wouldn't be time for any questions, followed by an uncomfortable five minutes of silence until the bell rang.)

[Dutch]

I wish our public energy was spent more on trying to re-instate math and English into our public schools than banning even more subjects.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I wish our public energy was spent more on trying to re-instate math and English into our public schools than banning even more subjects.

Stop sounding like a teacher!

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I wish our public energy was spent more on trying to re-instate math and English into our public schools than banning even more subjects.

See- this is how you know this subject is so backwards, it's the conservative promoting the unbanning of stuff with the liberals go nuts and wanting to ban things

SI

[Airhog]

I have no problems with a public school teaching a class on the history of religion, or even religion itself, as long as it teaches a variety of the established religions

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

See- this is how you know this subject is so backwards, it's the conservative promoting the unbanning of stuff with the liberals go nuts and wanting to ban things

SI

The liberals have never been about simply unbanning stuff. They have been about unbanning stuff they want and banning stuff they don't want. Just like every other group on the planet. It's all in the marketing really.

[Flasch186]

well I definitely want the teacher qualified AND I would want to be assured that, if in the end, a student comes to the conclusion that they do not agree with ID, that they can still earn a satisfactory mark. I also think that the syllabus and the school board should've been more fleshed out, if that comes up as a problem. Otherwise, as long as next semester someone offers, Judaism, or atheism, or Islam, etc. I think Im ok with this, on the whole.....see BW

[Telle]

My only problem with it is that it looks like she's trying to present ID as scientific fact and cover it up by calling the class a philosphy class.

[flounder]

The El Tejon Unified School District has agreed to drop the class.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

You know, I'm with Flasch on this one. It's an elective and no one's being force to take it. Furthermore, it's not like you can take this and have it replace Chem or something.

SI

Scenario: A school creates a class, 'Philosophy of Race'. This class "will take a close look at race and will discuss the scientific, biological, and historical aspects that suggest why whites are more advanced than blacks. This class will discuss white supremecy as an alternative response to equality. Topics that wlll be covered are IQ scores, phrenology, polygenesis, slavery, and the New Orleans flood. The class will include lecture discussions, guest speakers, and videos. The class grade will be based on a position paper in which students will support or refute the theory of the equality of the races.” The class is completely voluntary and catagorized under philosophy.

Are you in support of your local public school being allowed to teach this class?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by flounder

Even though they are calling it a philosophy class, the teacher is using it to advocate a creationist position. This is shown by the description of the class.

I basically agree -- though it's not being used as a creationist position, it is a creationist position. Whether it's currently being clothed as science or philosophy or whatever... it's an inherently and irretreivably religious argument, and has no place in the publicly funded schools.