well, sorta.
let me tell you a little back story. one night, adam, tim (no link to tim's never updated blog) and i were discussing the whole issue of intelligent design in education. not whether or not it's a valid theory, but about what we teach, how we teach it, when we teach it, and who gets to decide. these are interesting issues, and there is a lot of gray area. anyway, in this discussion, adam said something about i.d. is better suited to a philosophy class instead of a science class. of course, the three of us did not make any binding decisions that night for the state of california.
tonight, i read this article on the l.a. times.com. the article is about a group of parents suing the school district in lebec, ca. lebec is a little town on interstate 5. there is a mc donalds, sizzler, 3 gas stations and not much else. well, okay, there's other stuff, but basically it's a little town on the way between things.
the lawsuit is over a class called, "philosphy of design". adam, your wish was granted and we didn't even know. now, we get to see if it really passes the legal muster. even better, the case is coming to...fresno! it'll be initially heard at the u.s. district court in fresno. maybe pat robertson will tell us to never cry out to God in a time of disaster if things don't go patty's way.
i like the final two paragraphs on the article,
"One of the parents, Kenneth Hurst, who has a Ph.D. in geology and works as a scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, said in court papers that the class "conflicts with my beliefs a scientist. I believe this class undermines the sound scientific principles taught in Frazier Mountain High School's biology curriculum and is structured in a way that deprives my children of the opportunity to be presented with an objective education that would aid the development of their critical thinking skills."
Hurst, who has children in 10th and 12th grades, said the class also interfered with his personal religious views as a Quaker and "reflects a preference for fundamentalist Christianity over all other religious and scientific viewpoints."
sweet. and as a fellow member of the society of friends, i also dislike extremist views being forced upon everyone. okay, i haven't read the curriculum behind i.d. or this course, but i'm guessing it doesn't line up with my understanding of the biblical text. then again, the course seems to be an elective. so, if a few kids want to sign up, it doesn't bother me.
4 comments:
I think I would have to see the curriculumn, before I made any judgements. My understanding of intelligent design is far different than what must fundamentalists subscribe to. From what I have heard, it is simply that something inteligent started it all. It doesn't nescessarily espouse one view over another. I guess if the curriculumn took this approach over a fundamentalist view I would be more O.K. with it and it wouldn't be forcing beliefs on a kid. Anyway, keep us posted on the case.
My beef with this guy is that the course is an elective, which means he isn't trying to stop the school from forcing his kids to learn about intellegent design, he is trying to make it illegal for other kids to voluntarily learn about it in school.
Sorry to say but your Quaker friend sounds pretty fundamentalist to me, maybe not about the same specific ideals but in the same spirit.
from what i've heard, especially regarding the issue in Pa., i.d. doesn't leave it just as "an intelligent designer out there". they don't propose anything other than God. which i'm alright with, but i also think that if they're offering an alleged alternative class discussing philosphy of creation it has to be more than just i.d. versus darwinism/evolution/whatever enemy they're taking on.
as for justin's comment, i think mr. hurst is using that wording to echo the often given claims of proponents of i.d. but, as i say before, i do think it's problematic to sue over an elective. i mean, they aren't suing over say, british lit being offered as alterative and not indian, french, or other cultural lit.
i also think they have a good case in saying that the class is being taught by an unqualified person. the teach has bachelors in p.e. and socail science. maybe latter might include some philosophy, but unless she's jumped through the govt hopes (ask becky what it's like to qualify to teach something outside of your major) then she isn't qualified. of course, she could have an emergency cred. to teach while she is getting proper certification. the article doesn't say.
finally, i think this will be interesting to watch, because the school has attempted to offer an elective in such a manner that it should stand legal challenge. but will it? i also think it's a bit of a shame that certain Xian groups have made this topic their hill to die on, and really it has little to do with witnessing about X to the world
As Lebec is in Kern county, this story is covered alot in the local news and I have been hearing alot (too much) about it for a while now. I do think it is clever of them to offer it as a philosaphy class. As far as the teacher being qualified, since california lumps together all of their social sciences into one category, it is my understanding that someone with a single subject credential in social sciences could teach any class that could vaguely fit into social sciences(any philosaphy class would qualify). An example is that many schools in CA are now offering elective psychology classes taught by teachers who have no qualification in psychology other than their teaching credential in social sciences.
I'm not saying I like the idea of this class, but I think this scientists arguments are pretty pathetic considering his level of education. He seems to be grandstanding, rather than logically trying to prove why the school shouldn't legally be allowed to teach this. When you bring a lawsuit to court, are you supposed to rant in an angry, rambling style or are you supposed to prove your case based upon the laws and the facts of the situation?
Post a Comment