It has already been reported (Associated Press, York Daily Record) that the science teachers in Dover defied the administration and school board and refused to read the antievolution/ID disclaimer before their students (NCSE news page, PT 1, PT 2). The administration has given in, so now the disclaimer will be read by administrators instead of teachers. The teachers objected to ID purely on the grounds of their professional standards – they won’t teach fake science, and ID is fake science. The letter that the teachers wrote to the administration is a powerful statement, it is quoted in full below. A representative quote:
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT BIOLOGY. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORY.Dover science teachers. Caps original.
Some more details and links are available in the NCSE update. The full letter is quoted 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.”
(The bit about switching from “we” to “I” is a bit odd, but it is in the original letter. My understanding is that the letter was put together very quickly on Thursday.)
Put together quickly or not, it is a nice sharp stick poked in the eye of the Buckinghams who blather about stuff they’re totally ignorant of.
By the way, speaking of Buckingham, he was among the missing for a while. Did he show up to be deposed? Was he one of those who conveniently lost their memories?
RBH
Yes, he returned from parts unknown: Dover board member back
And yes, his memory seems poor: Memory woes halt ‘design’ lesson curb and also the York Daily Record story.
Congratulations to these science teachers in Dover.
All teachers in all districts should take the lesson from this. Character counts! Perhaps contrary to what the board thinks or to what many parents think, our primary responsibility is to the students in the classroom, not to the board that hired us, not to the parents that foot the bill. Teaching is not just another job wherein you do whatever the money source wants you to.
If teachers do anything, we deliver honest, open, accurate content supported by available evidence. Often that is difficult under the pressures of parents and other groups to deliver content that supports a particular ideology (sp?).
My vote for ‘teacher of the year’: Bertha Spahr, Jennifer Miller, Robert Linker, Robert Eshbach, Leslie Prall, Brian Bahn, David Taylor, Vickie Davis
Another interesting tidbit: Agape Press has a Discovery Institute quote not reported elsewhere regarding the DI’s opinion of the Dover situation:
Can someone explain to me how they could possibly reframe the Dover policy to make it constitutional (the DI appears to admit it is not)?
Or are they just “experts” at using code language like “evidence against evolution” in order to avoid court challenge.
Kudos to the teathers of the Dover, PA SD. Those of us who are active in this issue too often forget that there are other people of good sense and good faith (I hope the majority) that oppose pseudoscience and government intrusion into religion.
Kudo’s for the science teachers for putting the smack down on the policy.
From one of the article’s Nick linked to in his comments:
To me, this screams that the board knows that “intelligent design” is religious and not scientific. There is no other reason why the students should be told to “ask their parents.” That is the standard way public school handles religious questions from students.
More YDR stuff:
I wonder if he took a trip to Seattle.
Thomas More sneers back
Open letter at http://www.earnedmedia.org/tmlc_letter.htm
As reported in this thread (cross-posted on the thread about the UPenn letter protesting ID), Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center wrote an open letter in reply to the UPenn professors (PDF of the letter at the Christian Communication Network.
Since it is a pain to download pdfs, here is the extracted plain text:
Various minor facts that Thompson leaves out:
Nick
The Dover policy consists of the following:
That’s hardly a hodge-podge.
The implementation of the policy in its entirety consists of reading aloud the following statement to biology students:
The statement took me one minute to read aloud.
“.…attempts to avoid getting sued over ID by disclaiming religious intent. The courts have been only too happy to declare such cover language as “a sham” in previous creationism cases.”
That is because proto-Nazis/Darwinists like to rule by oligarchy, nothing more.
Notice that the real issue for proto-Nazis is to maintain a sort scholarship denying all spiritual values, not science. It has a “.…weakness.…due not to inferior training but to the mendacity inherent in any scholarship that overlooks or openly repudiated all moral and spiritual values.” (Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes Against the Jewish People By Max Weinreich (New York:The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) :7) http://mynym.blogspot.com/2005/01/r[…]visited.html
And if that were really the case then both the Declaration and the Constitution would be “unconstitutional.” It is a contradiction. But that is just the way that the judges of this Republic are these days.
It really is amusing to watch two cranks, DaveScot and mynym, make two distinct but equally “compelling” arguments for teaching creationist horsehockey in public school science classrooms. What a team!
mynym: I might be a little slow, but what are you implying? Are you saying that scientists are elitist Nazi’s? I’m not really following your argument. But I’m just a kid, please articulate your point a little more clearly for me.
A new press release from the Thomas More Law Center: “Document Shows Teachers’ Involvement With Biology Curriculum Change.”
Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 7, column 178, byte 547 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187
mynym: That is because proto-Nazis/Darwinists like to rule by oligarchy, nothing more.
Let me guess: “Just like Jefferson warned us.”
Re mynym: Quote: Notice that the real issue for proto-Nazis is to maintain a sort scholarship denying all spiritual values, not science. It has a “ . …weakness . …due not to inferior training but to the mendacity inherent in any scholarship that overlooks or openly repudiated all moral and spiritual values.” End of quote
The point you are missing is that the issue are not spiritual values. That it is so is the error (and main argument) of the creationists. No one rejects the spiritual values of the bible/qu’ran/etc. along with their respective creation myths. These two things are clearly separated.
Update