In the News

If ID makes headway in the public school system of the U.S., this may be the preferred tactic of engagement, if ID is not found "unconstitutional".

As reported by Scott Elliot, in the Dayton Daily News, the authors of a recent study who gave Ohio a "B" for science standards said they will change the grade to "F" if an intelligent design lesson plan is not dropped.

Paul Gross, the lead writer of a report by the Fordham Institute, which rated the science standards for all 50 states, said it turned out to be a mistake for his group to expect Ohio's intelligent design lesson plan would be more scientific.

"Creationism-inspired 'critical analysis' of evolutionary biology — as has been shown over and over again in the scientific literature, and recently in a Pennsylvania federal court — is neither serious criticism nor serious analysis," he said.

"Darwinists must be an endangered species. How else to explain their 80-year need for court protection to ensure their survival?"

With this provocative beginning, to some, Barney Brenner opines on the Human Events Web site.

"The same ACLU that once advocated for free and open discussion in schools is working to see it stifled today."

One of the questions that ID proponents must answer to the satisfaction of most is "What is ID?" Is it religion or science. And, if it is science, as we believe it is, does it better explain the universe we discover, regardless of whether the cosmos came from material causes or non-material causes. After all, we are seeking the Truth of Reality.

A blog on Townhall.com comments on Darwin's Theory and ID.

At times, it's good to see how the other side presents its side in the comments. Find the assertions, innuendos, etc. and ask yourself how you would answer in a gentle and respectful manner.

Fox News reports that under legal pressure, a rural school district Tuesday canceled an elective philosophy course on "intelligent design."

A group of parents had sued the El Tejon school system last week, accusing it of violating the constitutional separation of church and state.

Even though the Discovery Institute recommended a re-packaging of the course, the board decided to give up.

This decision shows that the fallout from the Kitzmiller v. Dover case is ongoing and significant. Those in El Tejon probably knew that even if they changed the course, they ran the risk of another legal challenge.

A point to take away is that this course was a PHILOSOPHY course and was not REQUIRED to be taken by any student. This shows that many opponents of ID will stop at nothing short of full censorship of non-materialistic ideas in public schools.

A letter written by a Discovery Institute attorney says: "The title and nature of this course are problematic and appear to misrepresent the content of the course and intelligent design." The letter later urges the district to: "either reformulate the course by removing the young earth creationist materials or retitle the course as a course not focused on intelligent design."

Karen Bair, of the Rock Hill Herald, reports that ID is unlikely to reach SC public school soon any time soon. State Sen. Mike Fair has been pushing for the change, but has met stiff resistance.