 |
| |
|
|
ixnay
|
|
ACS Staff: 'RoN' Content Editor
|
 |
I <3 etna, omg disgaea fag
Jan 1970
time: 22:31
|
|
quote:
Dover teachers refuse to read antievolution disclaimer
by Nick Matzke
According to the York Daily Record (Joseph Maldonado, "Dover teachers want out," January 7, 2005), eight science teachers at Dover Senior High School have refused to implement the "intelligent design" and "gaps/problems" policy mandated by the Dover Area School Board. On January 6, 2005, the teachers sent a letter to the district superintendent, Dr. Richard Nilsen, indicating their refusal to read a verbal disclaimer, which over four paragraphs states that evolution is a "Theory...not a fact," that "Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence," and that "intelligent design" is a valid scientific alternative. The disclaimer refers students to the supplementary intelligent design textbook Of Pandas and People (see the extensive NCSE Resources page on Pandas). The admistration is allowing students to "opt-out" of the lesson, therefore the science teachers stated that they also wished to "opt-out."
The teacher request is based entirely on professional grounds as laid out in Pennsylvania's Code of Professional Practice and Conduct for Educators. The teachers state that "intelligent design" and Of Pandas and People are not good science and conclude that teaching intelligent design would violate their professional standards.
On January 7, 2005, the administration for the Dover Area School District agreed to the teachers' request. According to an Associated Press story, the disclaimer will be read by school district administrators rather than teachers. The story quotes Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center and chief counsel for the school district. He said, "The Dover faculty have no right to opt out of a legal directive....Having said that, because there is pending litigation ... we are going to accommodate their request."
The letter from Dover science teachers has been made public and is reproduced below.
To: Dr. Richard Nilsen
From: Bertha Spahr
Jennifer Miller
Robert Linker
Robert Eshbach
Leslie Prall
Brian Bahn
David Taylor
Vickie Davis
Date: January 6, 2005
Re: Reading Statement on Intelligent Design
We have individually reviewed the statement you presented yesterday for presentation to our students at the beginning of the Biology unit dealing with evolution. You have indicated that students may "opt-out" of this portion of the class and that they will be excused and monitored by an administrator. We respectfully exercise our right to "opt-out" of the statement portion of the class. We will relinquish the classroom to an administrator and we will monitor our own students. This request is based upon our considered opinion that reading the statement violates our responsibilities as professional educators as set forth in the Code of Professional Practice and Conduct for Educators promulgated by the Professional Standards and Practices Commission and found at 22 Pa. Code section 235.1 et.seq. As noted in the introductory paragraph of the Code, section 235.2 (a): "Generally, the responsibility for professional conduct rests with the individual professional educator." Further, the Code provides in section 235.2 (b): "This chapter makes explicit the values of the education profession. When individuals become educators in this Commonwealth, they make a moral commitment to uphold these values."
Central to the teaching act and our ethical obligation is the solemn responsibility to teach the truth. Section 235.10 (2) guides our relationships with students and provides that "The professional educator may not Knowingly and intentionally misrepresent subject matter or curriculum."
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT BIOLOGY. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORY.
I believe that if I as the classroom teacher read the required statement, my students will inevitably (and understandably) believe that Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory, perhaps on par with the theory of evolution. That is not true. To refer the students to "Of Pandas and People" as if it is a scientific resource breaches my ethical obligation to provide them with scientific knowledge that is supported by recognized scientific proof or theory.
Reading the statement places us in violation of the following ethical obligations. Section 235.3 of the Code requires Professional educators to develop "sound educational policy" and obligates us "to implement that policy." Section 235.3 (b) makes it explicit that "Professional educators recognize their primary responsibility to the student and the development of the student's potential. Central to that development is the professional educator's valuing the pursuit of truth; devotion to excellence; acquisition of knowledge; and democratic principles." The same section goes on to provide: "Educators encourage and support the use of resources that best serve the interests and needs of students. Within the context of professional experience, the educator and the student together explore the challenge and the dignity of the human experience." Section 235.4 (b) (2) provides: "Professional educators shall be prepared, and legally certified, in their areas of assignment. Educators may not be assigned or willingly accept assignments they are not certified to fulfill." Section 235.5(b) (8) provides: "Professional educators shall be open-minded, knowledgeable and use appropriate judgement and communication skills when responding to an issue within the educational environment." Section 235.4 (b) (10) provides: "Professional educators shall exert reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions which interfere with learning or are harmful to the student's health and safety."
Pennsylvanians concerned about the antievolution policy passed by the Dover Area School Board are encouraged to contact Nick Matzke (matzkeATncseweb.org).
Articles
Maldonado, Joseph (2005). "Dover teachers want out." York Daily Record, January 7, 2005.
Raffaele, Martha (2005). "District Loosens 'Intelligent Design' Rule." Associated Press, January 7, 2005.
Dover Area School District (2004). Press Release for Biology Curriculum. December 14, 2004.
Dover Area School District (2004). Biology Curriculum (pdf format). November 2004. |
Finally, some teachers have the balls to stand up against bad pseudoscience. Sadly, a lot of good it will do, since the statements will still get read by someone else.
But it's a start, at least.
Wikipedia link for anyone needing a primer on intelligent design.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
I'd teach that some people incorrectly believe that the Holocaust never happened. And I could offer proof that the Holocaust did happen. |
So if a highschool teacher told your child, "Some people incorrectly believe that an intelligent designer is responsible for life, and here's the proof...," you would be okay with that? I sure wouldn't, and I'm willing to bet you really wouldn't be.
quote:
Why not tell students about both ID and evolution, and present your evidence to support evolution? |
Because it's a science class and ID does not entail any science. It's a theological/metaphysical issue, not a scientific one.
Why not present Hindu creationism in the science classes? Or Raelianism? There's just as much evidence for those as there is for ID.
quote:
The fact is that evolutionists are afraid that people will reject evolution. |
Scientists don't care if people accept or reject science, because when it is scientifically valid, the acceptance of the the people means diddly/squat.
No, teachers don't want to be saddled with teaching non-science (note the closeness to "nonsense") in a science classroom. It has no business being there, any more than teaching Voodoo shamanism does being in a medical student's training.
quote:
People need to know that ID is not creationism. ID is simply the theory that the complexity and order we observe in nature is the result of intelligence. ID does not say the intelligence is God or what the intelligence is. |
This is the funniest bit of doublespeak I've seen in a long time. Tell us, dear sir, what else could be responsible for creating this supposed "irreducible" complexity? This is nothing but backdoor creationism and you know it, so don't play the semantics game with us.
Oh, and ID isn't a "theory." Not in the scientific sense, anyway. It's nothing but an unsubstantiated bit of fallacious thinking (see the Argument from Incredulity).
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-01-2005 01:07
, students might actually believe in it. OH MY!!! We can't have students questioning evolution. 
The "new reply screen" had the following "thing to think about": 
|