Bill would allow "intelligent design" for science classes (PA)

[Charlie Brown]

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103-04082005-473587.html

HARRISBURG, Pa. - School boards would be allowed to require the teaching of "intelligent design" - a concept that is the subject of a federal lawsuit in Pennsylvania - as part of science lessons under a bill that has been introduced in the state House of Representatives.

Rep. Thomas C. Creighton, the prime sponsor, said it would encourage school boards to broaden the discussion of biological origins to include concepts besides the theory of evolution. Intelligent design holds that the universe must have been created by an unspecified guiding force because it is so complex.

"To say we're smart enough to know that there isn't an intelligent designer, we're being very arrogant in our thinking," said Creighton, R-Lancaster.

[Trajan]

1. WTF are they going to teach ? ...

What are the primary scientific concepts on which Academic 'ID' is founded ?

What textbook will they use ? ...

What a bunch of fucking maroons ....

[ladjf]

27. Exactly! Creationism is only a notion.

In order teach something, there has to be some tangible body of knowledge about the subject, some real science. Once the statement supporting the concept of ID has been made, there's nothing else to say.

[struggle4progress]

69. I can't wait to see the lab manual for this "science" course. eom

[bluestateguy]

2. They can learn about that on Sunday

and any other time they are in church. Seeing as how "intelligent design" is just creationism dressed up as a psuedo scientific theory, it's best left to the churches to teach kids the real thing--creationism--on Sunday.

Then the kids can decide for themselves what to believe. Or, parents who don't like that can send their kids to Christian private schools, without my taxpayer funded voucher, thank you.

[realisticphish]

6. yeah

they dont mean "intelligent design." they mean "exactly what the bible says." hell, I believe in "intelligent design" because i believe in god. but i do NOT believe in creationism because there are NO FUCKING FACTS TO GO WITH IT :grr:. whereas evolution has a shitload

[jukes]

3. this will not stop

on it's own.

& it's much more dangerous than is generally recognized. we're on a cusp of history.

[Festivito]

23. I don't see a danger worth so much attention.

Intelligent design is both a cottage industry and a different way to believe in history. We need to hone our debate skills, and this is an opportunity. But, a danger -- I don't see.

[fasttense]

25. I've always believed in a sort of Intelligent Design.

There is some supreme logic to the evolution of man. I came to the theory on my own after studying science and evolution. I also believe the big bang was the first manifestation of God. But I don't believe either theory belongs in the science classroom. The science classroom is a place to teach facts not supposition (though perhaps some teachers push their own agendas). I can't prove God had a hand in the big bang so it should not be taught as fact. Leave it out of the classroom and put it in the church where it belongs.

[Festivito]

49. But, what are facts?

.. a recalled belief. Usually verifiable using sources, in which we also believe. Science offers high probabilities of certain ideas being true, well, more accurately, verifiable, well, perhaps, verifiable within say 5%, or even verifiable under a 5% confidence lack. But, not absolute.

Neither side can prove itself to an absolute degree. Let science do its scientific work.

And, if a teacher crosses the line of law, deal with the teacher, not the subject.

[fujiyama]

26. What is that "different way" of believing history?

Intelligent Design is antithetical to anything scienctific thought and teaching stands for.

We sit by and bitch and moan as India and other countries advance their scientific industries (not only computer science but pharmacies as well), but we can't even teach our kids proper scientific concepts anymore.

[Festivito]

48. Perhaps our Constitution deters our advance at this point.

Science deals witha hypothesis and test. Well, religious literalists hypothesise their religious literealism and conclude it valid. (NOT "antithetical to anything scienctific") Most, I say most, scientists make hypothesies which conflict with this, and need, even must, use science to make an agreeable determination. (Teaching "proper scientific concepts")

The overriding question I see is: who decides? You, me, DU, Freepers, representatvies, rule of law, voters? And, do we accomodate, or do we decide, decide as in kill one idea.

Well, I see DU has it's pitchforks and torches raised and are yelling kill kill kill, but, I am not.

[ldf]

55. intelligent design

is the foot in the door for "religion" and the "bible" to be taught on the public dime.

how much more obvious can it be?

sometimes i almost wish that i had schoolage children just so i could assist in bringing much of this to a screeching halt.

you would NEVER teach my child that crap, and my child would NOT "sit down and shut up" when it WAS taught.

and you damn right i would use my child for this purpose. the other side is doing it every day, and we have GOT to FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE.

at least my child would be assisting the stand for truth, and not superstitious myths. that would be a lesson in itself.

[Festivito]

57. yes, and this goes round and round.

One public dime and the hoardes yelp so loud they cannot hear anything else but yelping.

If the students and moreover, the parents, agree, why cannot they have taught what they want tsught? They pay their taxes, so how about taxation with representation in their school? That if the ALL agree. It's their dime.

If they do not agree, if one Atheist, if one Scientologist, then the question becomes do we accomdate or eliminate. For religion, we should segregate or eliminate. And, I'd agree elimination is best.

But, when ABOUT religion, comparaative, or as relgion fits into existing curricula, elimination does not work. It becomes free speech. So, they are crafty, like foxes.

Fight fire with fire if you wish. Get science to prove science.

[fasttense]

61. You're right. Science should be taught in the classroom and religion

should be taught in Church. If they want to "teach" ID, get a class going on comparative religion. Why do they have to "teach" it as science?

[realisticphish]

4. fuck, these people are dumb

"intelligent design" is not the opposite of "evolution", dumbass.

evolution is a process. no evolutionist claims to know how it started. they can coexist perfectly well

however, though i am a christian, evolution=facts, "intelligent design"=no facts. end of discussion

[TwentyFive]

5. Now is the time for that excellent bumper sticker I saw recently.

It said,

"Don't pray in my school
And I won't think in your church"

[countmyvote4real]

11. That is brilliant. Thank you for that.

I hope that you don't mind if I repreat it here, there and everywhere.

"Don't pray in my school
And I won't think in your church"

[TwentyFive]

13. Yes - repeat it everywhere - here is a link to a site that sells them

NOW sells these bumper stickers.

http://www.now.org/cgi-bin/store/BS-DPMS.html?id=NiXcR9Nu

[currents]

15. That's a good point

"Man I hate these people" (Mike Malloy)

[msongs]

34. chistian terrorists strike again...or do they mean teach ISlam creation?

or buddhist, confuscian, atheist, the earth sits on the back of a giant turtle? we were created from a jar of smuckers jam?

and if god created everything why is it such a mess? and who created god?

the chrisitan taliban. ick

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[FM Arouet666]

7. The dumbing down of America

I am sitting here watching the NGC, national geographic channel, with an hour long program about crop circles. A barrage of religious and pseudo-scientific nonsense is the mark of our time. Welcome to the American dark age, destroy education, destroy rational skepticism, support religious and political dogma. And why not? It has worked so very well in the past. Can't rule the roost, if all the chickens have enough brains to question your authority.

Oh jeebus, some pilgrim is measuring voltages with his Radio Shack volt meter on the crop circles and concluding that the supernatural is behind them. We are doomed........

[RareLubbockDem]

8. Have they thought this thru? Not likely......

I heard a comment (don't know where...) the other day that made me think. If they truly want to push this, they'll be basically accepting anyone's idea of "intelligent design" and as I understand it, scientologists' ideas would NOT mesh well with the whole born-again-rapture-fearing-etc... mindset.

This would be fun to watch over the years, if it weren't so damn serious...

[WindRavenX]

9. these people are flippin' morans

EVOLUTION IS NOT ORIGIN SPECIFIC YOU DUMB FUCKS!
EVOLUTION SAYS NOTHING ABOUT GOD.

I'm surrounded by idiots!

[BlueJazz]

10. I hope they are going to allow debate about the TRUE ...

...maker of our Universe. I worship Mr. Cottontail.

[Toots]

37. Oh come on everyone knows it is the Great Pumpkin

Sheesh :silly:

[Old and In the Way]

12. Pretty soon we'll be teaching our kids that the sun revolves around

the Earth and the Grand Canyon is 2000 years old......because the Intelligent Designer told us so.

[Champ]

64. And the entire world was populated by Adam and Eve and their 2 sons

:dunce:

[pfitz59]

71. Oooh...Cain on Able!

Which one had the kids?

[currents]

14. ALL THEY ARE SAYING IS THAT SCIENCE IS POINTLESS

WE DON'T UH, KNOW SO UH, WE ARE GOING TO UH, TEACH YOU UH, THAT SOMEBODY MUST HAVE INTELLEGENCE BECAUSE WE UH, DON'T

[kodi]

16. its unpatriotic, since the nation with the best scientists rules the world

"the Lord's our shepherd says the Psalm, but just in case, we better get the Bomb!"

such weakening of education and its purpose, to teach the young to think clearly is a direct attack on the strength of the united states, it is in fact unpatriotic, anti-american, and only those who hate america would support such measures.

this is how the fight over evolution must be fought. throw back their rhetoric right into their teeth and call them anti-american for their views.

those who advocate creationism or intelligent design are purposely weakening america.

why do they hate america so much?

[currents]

17. How are we going to bomb the shit out of the next country

if we start teaching all the engineers and chemists that science is wrong?

[kodi]

19. make that teach them useless "pseudo-science" that defends us from nothing

and destroys american advances and superiorities in medicine, biology, engineering, and chemistry.

it is happening already and undermining the US economy.

[JohnLocke]

18. My thoughts on the issue

Steve Mirsky put it best:
"Varation coupled with natural selection is the most widely accepted theory that explains evolution. Evidence for evolution itself is so overwheming that those who deny its reality can only do so through nonscientific arguments. They have every right to hold such views. They just can teach them as science in science class."
(Scientific American, February 2005)

Of course, like most sane people, I believe the there was an intelligent Creator who created the universe and set into motion evolution, the laws of science, and other basic principles of physics. In other words, I am an Evolutionary_creationist. God and science exist in harmony. One does not "defeat" the other.

[booley]

20. Creationist want it both ways

Creationist or Intelligent design advocates or whatever the hells they callign themselves this week say that they aren't pushing religion..that thier theory should be taught alonside evolution as SCIENCE.

But if that's true, why would these same gusy want a bill to allow schools blur the sep between church and state?

http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1113038540317280.xml

religion or not, Creationism is just bad science.

[Voltaire99]

21. Good intellectual foundation for working at Wal-Mart

God's "intelligent design" is manifest in all those neat aisles and low prices, you realize.

If there weren't a God, your average Wal-Mart would look like...like..OH HOLY JESUS, like a Muslim bazaar!

[truthisfreedom]

22. bwaha! they're going to allow teaching of the idea that EXTRATERRESTRIALS

brought us here and cultured our existence?

these people have no idea what possibilities they've introduced with their "intelligent design" concept. heck, we may even inspire some kids to discover the real truth! 8^)

[Kinkistyle]

30. Isn't that the Scientologist doctine?

I seem to recall that in the highest and most sacred theology of Scientology, it is written that the world and mankind was created by a diabolically evil Super-alien named Xenu.

[fasttense]

62. That's a Ralien fundamental concept. (The fake clone baby group)

That extraterrestrials brought us here and manipulated the evolution of man. Wow, maybe they'll tech the X-Files in Science class too.

[Roland99]

24. DAMNIT!! Evolution is NOT about the origins of the universe!

Fucking stupid assholes!!

[devinsgram]

28. What else would you expect from Lancaster.

Church of the Brethren, Mennonite and Amish, all in one area.

[xpunkisneatx]

51. But its not them...

It isn't the Brethren, Mennonite, or Amish who want this taught in schools...(actually, most mennonite kids in my area go to the Lancaster Mennonite which is a religious school so they can teach what they want and the Amish only go to school until 8th grade and also have their own schools...but thats besides the point)...its the Evangelicals in my area that are trying to bring this into the schools. Has anyone ever read the book they are trying to get teachers to use?? Of Pandas and People...it is the crappiest science text i have EVER seen. No actual pictures...just cartoons and darwin bashing. Its ridiculous. I have it in my library at college.

[AnnInLa]

29. Steps to theocracy coming fast and furious

I don't know how the ACLU will keep up with all of them...if you donate to NO other cause this year, please consider joining/donating to ACLU...it's the last organization standing between us and a theocracy.

[mmonk]

31. A modern politician in PA

needs to introduce a bill requiring science to be taught in any religion or philosophy courses.

[depakid]

33. I'm beginning to think that's what we need

If we can't keep the fundie assholes out of our science classes and museums, then we need to take biology, geology and astrophysics into their classrooms and churches.

[THUNDER HANDS]

32. how can you teach something that takes a sentence to explain

"god created the universe"

thus, the theory of intelligent design.

Really, four words explain a whole 'theory'

Its absurd.

[Wink]

35. You gotta read this

This letter to the editor in the Joliet Herald is why creationism should never be taught in public school (or ever for that matter). Some people would believe the easter bunny created the galaxy if you accompanied the teaching with some incense and pageantry.

Notice "why has everything in the Bible been proven, Jericho proof, Jesus proof — do I have to go on?"



The Letter

This letter is to not just the editor but to everyone. An article by Summer Weiss was in the newspaper on March 28. I am writing to agree with her. First off, I know her — she is my best friend, and I want to say that is how she really talks. I talk that way too. You see, some non-believers think we have a southern accent saying praise Jesus all the time. Though they could be talking to one without knowing it, but some are afraid of their belief for fear of ridicule but some are brave enough to say it to everyone. And I will admit that unless you are used to the teasing, like me, it will hurt. But tell everyone.

First, if you get concert tickets, you don't tell no one, you tell everyone you can find. That is how we should be.

Second, if there is no proof of God, why has everything in the Bible been proven, Jericho proof, Jesus proof — do I have to go on?

Third, Christianity is not boring at school. We are falling, rolling and shaking, because of God's presence. At Wednesdays' worship, it is "wow."

Everyone is my friend. Before I was saved, I hated everything. But I am joyful now. If this is intense, I understand but it is true.

God bless you.

[Roland99]

36. LMFAO!!! Wow!!

[KittyWampus]

38. The Uninformed, Biased Comments So Far Expose A Deep Seated

acceptance of authority that the Left supposedly rejects.

And it also illustrates how pervasive Scientific Materialism is engrained in many Westerner's thought process.

The Neo-Darwinian THEORY of how Evolution happens is a remnant of a time when Western Culture thought of non-Western peoples as THINGS and Nature as an adversery which needed to be beaten into submission.

If you believe Neo-Darwinism, you support a theory which considers the Universe and MANKIND, in Essence, as nothing more than a Machine with Consciousness as something to be ignored, forgotten or reviled.

Evolution is a fact, not a theory. The empirical evidence clearly demonstrates that Evolution happens.

As to HOW Evolution happens, there is a prevailing, but unproven theory called Neo-Darwinism that has fatal flaws.

ONE of Neo-Darwinism's fatal flaws is that it is seated in Materialism. It posits the notion that the Universe and Reality proceed from Physical/Inert matter and Consciousness is merely a later, epiphenomena.

This view can no longer be supported.

We now know that the Universe is non-local. Casuality is NOT dependant on Space & Time.

Too many experiments have proven that people can effect other people and things without actually touching them or using some other physical medium.

Intelligent Design is another valid theory to explain HOW Evolution happens.

It posits the notion that the Universe proceeds from Consciousness and that Consciousness is the root matter of the Physical.

This theory does NOT necessarily posit the notion that the Original Consciousness has a Locus.

SOME scientists/theorists may make an unfounded intellecual leap and say that the Intelligence inherent in all of Reality is housed in one person, being or whatever.

However, just because SOME go too far does not mean ALL do. Nor does it even mean that a great part of their theory preceeding their erroneous leap into deifying Consciousness is incorrect.

Missing the exact center of a bullseye isn't missing the mark entirely.

Intelligent Design, as a theory, could effectively drive a wedge into the "Religious Right".

Teaching ID AS IT SHOULD BE TAUGHT, weakens the case for the Religious Fundies version of what Spirit/Consciousness/Intelligence is.

[Bridget Burke]

39. So teach Intelligent Design in philosophy class...

Not in Biology I.

[kypper]

40. And your comments aren't biased?

I don't know what articles you're reading, but I have poured over many scientific journals and I have never found that "experiments have proven that people can affect other people and things without actually touching them or using some other physical medium." In fact, I have seen just the opposite; people have put up huge cash rewards for experiments, repeatable experiments that definitively show ESP, telekinesis, etc. They go unclaimed.

"Intelligent Design is another valid theory to explain HOW Evolution happens." No, that is simply wrong. Intelligent design is an untestable idea, and because it cannot be disproved, has NO VALID PLACE ALONGSIDE SCIENCE. Science is utterly based on the concept of:
Hypothesis... test.
If true, repeat.
If true for everyone else, repeat.
If alternate exp support, repeat.
.
.
.
Support as theory. (wow, not even fact. That sure is biased
arrogance...):eyes:
Else, reject.

ID cannot be tested! You cannot reject, nor accept it! It is religious propaganda intended to re-establish 'God's control' over life; they are finally caving into the fact that evolution truly is fact, and they are trying to find an alternate way to rationalize to their advantage.

The proponents of ID are no different from pundits - observe & deny... failing that, spin.

[donco6]

43. Actually, there are some classic physics experiments

that do imply what cryingshame is proposing.

"There is a whole set of questions revolving around what is known as the mind-body problem. Let me explain the essence of the problem in the following way. From the physicist’s point of view the mystery is this: I think thoughts, I have ideas, emotions, impressions, sensations – mental activity – and I can respond to this mental activity in a very obvious way, just by moving parts of my body. So, for example, if I would like to raise my arm to wave away a fly . . . my arm obligingly goes up.

"Now, how can thoughts do that? How can the desire ‘I would like to raise my arm’ be turned into the physical activity of the arm moving? Well, we can trace back a sort of chain of command, can’t we? We know that there are nerve impulses in my arm that cause the muscles to contract, and these nerve impulses have travelled down my nerve fibres from my brain, so the signals originate in electrical activity in my brain. But what is it that just triggers all that, that chain of command? What starts those electric currents off in the first place? How is it that a thought can be translated into electrons moving down nerves, and so on? (Actually, it’s a lot more complicated than electrons moving, but never mind.) To put it in the most blunt form, how can thoughts move matter?"

And this classic:

"The essence of quantum mechanics is that there is an irreducible disturbance that takes place whenever a microscopic system is observed. (By a microscopic system I mean something of atomic or molecular proportions.) Thus, down at the scale of atoms and molecules, the very act of observation disturbs a system in a way that simply cannot be reduced to zero or allowed for in any predictable way. This means that the disturbance is irretrievably part of the measurement process.

"As a result of these inescapable disturbances, the observer and the observed became entangled – intertwined – in a way that is simply inherent in nature at the most fundamental level and irreducible even in principle. And so we are presented with a major problem – how to relate observer and observed – but also a major opportunity. The major opportunity is that here, for the first time in physics, we see notions of observation (equals mind) entering in physics at a very fundamental level, and not just in an incidental, onlooking capacity. So this is a loophole that could just provide the clue to explaining consciousness within the scope of physics."

Consciousness is an inherent part of science and the fundamental building block of science - observation. So we can't blithely dismiss it.

[kypper]

45. You're missing the point

Just because we haven't yet deduced what causes consciousness doesn't mean we should put in place an idea that cannot be proven or disproven. That puts us at an impasse, preventing any possible further development into the concept of consciousness and its root.

ID CANNOT BE DISPROVEN, SO IT HAS NO PLACE IN OUR FORMULATIONS OF THE HOW AND WHY.

[donco6]

47. Calm down. I don't support ID in any way.

But I'm not a strict materialist either, as you seem to be. Just pointing out the flaws in that philosophy.

[kypper]

50. I'm perfectly calm

I just used caps to highlight my point. Many people appear to miss the gist.

I am agnostic. We cannot definitively prove or disprove God, so I don't believe one way or the other. If I had my druthers then yes, I would lean towards Atheism and the complete absence of God. Because I believe wholeheartedly in the principles of the scientific method, however, I am forced to remain agnostic.

Whether or not I believe ID possible, I know it shouldn't be 'taught' in any field other than philosophy. It has no place in science the same way philosophy doesn't, for the same reasons.

[fasttense]

63. Go Kypper, go Kypper. n/t

[donco6]

42. You're being naiive, cryingshame

You know as well as I do these religious whackos don't really give a shit about "scientific" creationism. What they really want is "biblical" creationism. Darwinism is in the way, therefore it must be eliminated. This is just the first step.

One glance at your thinking and they'll be screaming "Eastern Mysticism!!" (regardless of whether it really is or not - it doesn't matter) and they'll pass a law outlawing that, too. They did it before with trancendental meditation.

Your points and thinking are accurate - there's plenty of evidence pointing to a conciousness that can affect matter without direct contact (does observation change the outcome?) But to advocate creationism thinking it will ultimately lead to more expanded thinking is wrongheaded. That is not the goal of these people and will not be tolerated by them.

[kypper]

46. 'scientific creationism' is an oxymoron *nt*

.

[mmonk]

58. science builds on foundations of discovery

and physical or observable evidence. That is why ID does not need to be in a science class since it starts with a belief and tries to put physical or observable evidence and discovery into that box.

[meow2u3]

41. Rendell will likely veto that sham of a bill

faster than you or I could sneeze!

[m0nkeyneck]

44. Science-fiction 101

[skip fox]

52. Not many people know it but W. was secretly canonized by the Pope

in a secret chamber during his last visit to Rome.

Story:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=3025241#

[Mend]

53. Next time their bacteria become resistant to an

antibiotic (evolution), they can wait for intelligent design to save their frigging lives.

[xpunkisneatx]

54. My thoughts on Intelligent Design

I am taking a class this semester called Neodarwinism and its challengers. In this class we not only study Darwins theory of evolution, but also all of the theories that have come about in recent times, most notably ID, Developmental systems theory, complexity theory, etc. We also hosted a symposium about this topic with guests such as Michael Behe (one of the founders of the ID movement), Neil Shanks (a stict ID opponent), and Paul Gross (author of "Creationims Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design). Now, my feelings on ID are probably vey much due to the fact that a) I am a scientist and b) i am an atheist, but i feel it is absolute crap. The entire movement claims they do not specify a creator...so techinically, it could mean that aliens seeded the earth, or a time-traveling molecular biologist created everyting. Each of those alternatives is just as plausible as a "god". Not to mention the fact that if we are so "intelligently designed", why were we made so fucked up? Honestly, i don't think the human race was intelligently designed. There are many other better ways to make humans than how we turned out. Why do we still have the reptillian brain? Why do we still have an appendix? Why do we go through several lower forms of life during embryogenesis? None of these things point to anything intelligent. William Dembske is another leader in the ID movement and he has created an "equation" that he uses to determine if something has specified complexity (indicative of a designer). He claims he can without a doubt prove something is designed with this equation he uses. Just another example of someone making something up that lay people are too stupid to reject. I suggest everyone here read the Wedge Strategy that was layed out for the Intelligent Design movement...and then tell me what their motives are. They clearly state they want to bring the United States to God. Well, i am sorry if I don't want to be brought to god or want my children to be brought to god. Here is a link to the Wedge Strategey -
http://www.kcfs.org/Fliers_articles/Wedge.html

[skip fox]

56. BREAKING!!! Bush claims he was canonized by the late Pope during his last

visit to the Vatican in a secret chamber behind the Pope's living quarters that "even the fancy-dancy cardinals don't know nothing about."

Read the story:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x3025241

[Zhade]

59. Unconstitutional AND idiotic.

ID isn't science. At best, it's personal philosophy.

[VegasWolf]

60. So now PA wants to teach about demons and stuff instead of science.

I can see Bush nodding his head in approval. The US is rapidly becoming the backwater country of the world.

[rukkyg]

65. I can't

believe this is fucking happening to my home state. WTF.

[Demeter]

66. There Is Nothing Intelligent about Intelligent design! n/t

[Rex]

67. Intelligent design doesn't bother me

it is the end result of the design (at least as far as humans are concerned) that has me really worried! It would seem we love to kill, exploit, and enslave way beyond the law of averages. I believe this to be a flaw in this current version of hu-man. Need to have a word with management!

[sharonking21]

68. Only from peer-reviewed scientific articles

If they can make their case for intelligent design using evidence presented through the normal scientific peer review process, as has been done with evolution, they have a right to teach it. Otherwise, not in any science courses, which are supposed to be based on evidence-based research.

[XemaSab]

70. I can sum up ID in one sentance

"Some people think that there was the hand of a Creator in the development of life on Earth."

There. I've just explained ID.

I don't care if teachers add that sentance to their science lectures, but to waste any more time than that on ID is a bunch of garbage.

[DC Law]

72. the bill's text is:

This appears to be the bill in question, 2005 Pennsylvania House Bill No. 1007, of the Pennsylvania 189th General Assembly:

Section 1516.2. Teaching Theories on the Origin of Man and Earth.

(a) In any public school instruction concerning the theories of the origin of man and the earth which includes the theory commonly known as evolution, a board of school directors may include, as a portion of such instruction, the theory of intelligent design. Upon approval of the board of school directors, any teacher may use supporting evidence deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of intelligent design.

(b) When providing supporting evidence on the theory of intelligent design, no teacher in a public school may stress any particular denominational, sectarian or religious belief.

(c) This section shall not be construed as being adverse to any decision which has been rendered by an appellate court.

Seems as though this bill suffers very similar flaws as the state law struck down in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), a state law that required the teaching of creationism as well as evolution, whenever evolution was taught.

The decision hinged on a presumption that creationism is religious doctrine. If it can be factually determined that "intelligent design" is just a ruse for more religious doctrine (which everyone knows it is), then this law seems to be every bit as unconsitutional as the one in Edwards.