Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said.
Several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs, he said.
The purpose of this policy was simply to inform students that Evolution is a theory, not fact. And as such, there are still parts of this theory that are still unexplained and unproven. Additionally, it mentions Intelligent Design as an alternative theory and lets students know where they can find more information.
The policy simply required that the following statement was to be read to nineth graders before studying evolution in thier biology class:
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, “Of Pandas and People,” is available in the library along with other resources for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.
What is wrong with reminding students that a theory is just that… a theory? And while I have not read the recommended text “Of Pandas and People”, I have to wonder…If it doesn’t reference religion, why can’t it be used in public schools?
Finally, I find it interesting that a judge would accuse Christians of lying and having ulterior motives in the passing of this policy, but ignore secular humanists that clearly have lied in their efforts to remove God from all areas of public life.
Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense…