In an online press release on 2005/05/25, Oklahoma state Senators Mike Mazzei & Clark Jolley announced, "Henry Nominee for Textbook Committee Opposed".
Interesting... what, in particular, made them think that the nominee in question, Dr. Virginia Ann Dell, should be opposed?
“Despite her impressive academic degrees and her service as a teacher at the Oklahoma School of Science and Math, her errant belief that the teaching of the Intelligent Design Theory blurs the line between the separation of church and state is the first of many problems to arise with her nomination,” stated Sen. Clark Jolley, R-Edmond.
Sen. Mike Mazzei, R-Tulsa, stated, “Nothing exists in state or federal law that prohibits the discussion of creationism or Intelligent Design theory in the classroom. Let’s encourage open and honest discussion of all theories so students can learn to think critically and, with their parents’ guidance, develop their own worldview.”
Dell’s responses to questioning in the Senate Education Committee showed she is unwilling to even allow a mention or discussion of alternative theories on the origins of the universe.
So, someone with actual academic training, experience as a science teacher, and apparent familiarity with the legal status of antievolution efforts (such as Epperson v. Arkansas, McLean v. Arkansas, and Edwards v. Aguillard, which show Mazzei to be behind the times as far as legal issues go) is definitely someone to keep away from helping make decisions on textbooks in Oklahoma.
Continue reading "Oklahoma, Textbooks, and Ignorance" (on The Austringer)
I could cite a few precedents.
That press release was dated “For Immediate Release: May 25, 2005”. Why haven’t I read about this in the national press yet?
Let’s look up liberal in a dictionary:
You could start with the list in my post and add to it.
That’s a pretty compelling scientific case, don’t you think? ‘We are not aware of legal precedents against it’.
Why is anyone surprised that people who are ignorant of science are also ignorant of the law? Perhaps there is an underlying causal relationship for both phenomena.
Ah yes, Oklahoma, scene of one of the most egregious thefts of native land in national history. Terminal of the “Trail of tears” ..for the survivors. The site of the extinguishing of 5 small republics, in contravention of all law and treaty, this conveniently forgotten by “history”. After the Glenpool was discovered the theft began in earnest, dubious “dead claims” and the plundering of orphans being only notable because of the extent of the judicial enablement. Put nothing past the Okies. Folks who decry the current environment of illegal wars and nefarious torture schemes, theft of resources from a conquered nation and the rest as being unique to our times, should read a bit of history. Many in Oklahoma guard their ignorance carefully, with good reason.
Science vs. science
Keep a barf bag handy if you plan to read the entire article.
Off-topic, but the relevant archived thread doesn’t seem to be accepting comments any more:
Design proponents take movement to Web
Just to repeat what we all know, anyway…
1) The implicit motivation of ID/creationism is the idea that “science is the only major alternative to my particular religious dogma”. They seem to suffer from the illogical conviction that even if they could prove mainstream science to be “wrong”, their particular dogma would win by default, whereas an infinite number of explanations of reality would still be possible. 2) Their motivation is entirely political; it’s about forcing their dogma on others by law. 3) In all its not-very-variable variations, the message of “intelligent design” is always that some particular natural phenomenon (bacterial flagellum, human blood clotting cascade, ribosome, mousetrap, whatever) is too “complex” or “irreducible” to be explained by mainstream science, and that by extension, this must be true of many other phenomenae as well. In other words, it’s ultimately an attempt to forbid, broadly speaking, scientific conjecture or research in biology. The intelligent design “theorist” has already “proved” by “logic” or “statistics” that such and such a problem cannot be solved by science*. Whatever mainstream science says in the future, no matter what the evidence, must be wrong - it’s already been “proved” that the “flagellum” or whatever can’t be explained “reductively”. If “intelligent design” is correct, it would be madness to do science (or to fund it). *Of course, the intelligent design “theorist” will muddy the waters a bit by saying that throwing up hands and declaring that “designer did it magically” is now “real science”, and that mainstream science isn’t. 4) Of course, intelligent design doesn’t hold itself to actually explaining anything. It merely argues that science “can never” explain certain things which seem ammenable to scientific thought (obviously no-one denies that there is much that science legitimately can’t deal with and in fact doesn’t attempt to, but that isn’t the point). Unlike a scientific explanation, a “design” explanation is merely a belligerent expression of enforced ignorance - the “designer” can’t officially be identified*, how or why the designer did anything can’t be studied. *The hypocritical implications by all ID advocates that the “designer” is God notwithstanding.
“The gatekeepers of evolutionary theory are very worried about the design movement,” Mr. Meyer said. “It’s got a huge appeal with students, it’s framed in a way that makes their position very unattractive, and the evidence supports it. When it was religion versus science, evolutionists won that debate every time.”
Now, it’s science versus science, he said. And the debate evolutionists had thought was settled has only just begun. —•
Wow. Speechless.
It’s an old article since the OK ad ruling was issued several years ago (1999?).
Her problem was that she was edyookated beyond her intelligence..
Stuart, you mean “eddicated”. Boy! Could you be more ig’nant? ;>) ~Gary
Update