theposse.org: Why is this unconstitutional?

Post by Temporal

(Temporal) — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 01:52:29 GMT

For a more detailed explanation of why this is unconstitutional, do feel free to read the judge's opinion. A key point can be found on page 18.

Post by mattsteg

(mattsteg) — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 16:01:03 GMT

It's unconstitutional because it attempts to explicitly present a religious message in public schools.

Post by Temporal

(Temporal) — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 07:39:08 GMT

BTW, it is also only a theory that the Earth orbits the sun. An alternative hypothesis is that the sun actually orbits the Earth, and all of the planets in the solar system move in various complicated patterns that just happen to appear consistent with the Earth orbiting the sun. We really have no way to disprove this hypothesis. Like Intelligent Design, it is not falsifiable nor even scientifically testable. Like Intelligent Design, its only prediction is that things will work exactly as they actually do, and its only explanation for why they work this way is because that's just the way they are.

Does this mean we should be teaching kids in school that it's possible that the sun orbits the Earth? Should we point out that there are "holes" in the theory of gravity, which explains why and how the Earth orbits the sun? Should we direct students to read some book that presents this alternative theory?

No, of course not! That would be absolutely ridiculous!

Post by burn

(burn) — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 06:09:55 GMT

A disclaimer is redundant because of the very definition of a Theory. Also within the first few chapters of any high-school science book there are a few paragraphs telling you the difference between a hypothesis, theory, and fact.

Ask these people (those who wish this disclaimer to be added to text books) to re-word it to simply say: "The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to eventually to take a standardized test of which some theories are part. Theory is not a fact due to a lack of conclusive evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. With respect to any subject, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments."

I can guarantee you they will disagree with the above ambiguous paragraph as their only desire is the inclusion of religion into science.

Also by it's very definition a theory may contain facts and laws.

The truth of the matter is they should be allowed to teach intelligent design; but it should fall under the class heading of philosophy, not science.

Also the statement: " The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families." is false. By a science and/or sex eds classes very nature the origins of life are discussed.

Post by Temporal

(Temporal) — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 04:14:53 GMT

Yes, you're right: we should make it very clear that every scientific theory could be wrong. In fact, we already do this. I was specifically taught in various science classes that we cannot ever be sure that a hypothesis is true. We can only be sure when it is false (when we find a direct contradiction).

However, the rule you quote is explicitly singling out evolution. Doing so is likely to confuse students. If you take extra time out to talk about how evolution could be wrong, you give the misleading impression that evolution is somehow weaker as a theory than other scientific theories. This is not true. Evolution is one of the most strongly-supported theories in science.

Of course, it's not unconstitutional to mislead students in school (though it's obviously undesirable). What's unconstitutional here is:
1. The motivation for singling out evolution is entirely religious. This is not an OK motivation for inserting material into a scientific curriculum.
2. The rule suggests teaching students about Intelligent Design, a religious theory. No, the fact that they stripped out all references to god or any particular religion does not make it non-religious.

Post by dave

(dave) — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:25:23 GMT

Seems like a pretty reasonable statement to me, disclaimers like this should be added to every scientific theory. Anybody know why this was considered unconstitutional this week?

"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."