ID rumblings in Muscatine, Iowa

| 59 Comments

From The Muscatine Journal:

Although they don’t all agree on the merits of intelligent design, most members of the Muscatine School District Board of Education believe that students should know about it, and they agree that it will likely be discussed by the Board within the next two years.

Ann Hart, vice president of the Muscatine School Board, said she would not remove evolution from the school district’s curriculum, because of its scientific basis, but that students should also know about intelligent design.

“I think somewhere along the line, intelligent design should be brought up because a lot of people believe in it; and, otherwise, kids aren’t going to understand it as well as they should,” Hart said. “I don’t think we should go in-depth with it, just let kids know what it’s about and that it’s what some people believe and then go on to evolution. I believe in evolution, for sure, but we do need to let kids know this is something that people believe.”

(Continued on Aetiology)

59 Comments

“I know what I believe, but I guess my feeling is I don’t know if I want atheist people in teaching positions trying to talk about intelligent design,” he said. “If I could determine who the instructors were, that’d be different

So I guess then it’s OK for me to stipulate I don’t want religious people teaching science?

Although they don’t all agree on the merits of intelligent design, most members of the Muscatine School District Board of Education believe that students should know about it, and they agree that it will likely be discussed by the Board within the next two years.

See if this doesn’t change after Dover.

A question I would like to see put to Ann Hart: Why don’t we discuss astrology in astronomy classes? After all, lots of people believe in it, so shouldn’t our kids understand what it is about?

I was thinking the same thing.

If the topic were both historical (rather than a present political debate) and scientific, THEN it might make some sense. At least, I often find it informative to show what scientists in the past mistakenly believed, and how the evidence available to them led them to that conclusion, as a useful background in how science is imperfect, based on evidence, and learns from errors.

The problem is, ID meets neither of these criteria. It’s not something people can look at dispassionately as a past error, and it’s not an error scientists have made, nor is it based on any data or correctable based on any data.

As it is, people believe lots of religious doctrines. This is what comparative religion classes are for. I think Ann Hart is basically correct, provided she isn’t talking about science classes.

I know what I believe, but I guess my feeling is I don’t know if I want atheist people in teaching positions trying to talk about intelligent design,” he said. “If I could determine who the instructors were, that’d be different

Gerard Harbison has picked out the most outrageous quote, from school board member Paul Brooks. Not only does Brooks clearly recognize that IDC is indeed religion, but he shows himself to be a bigot as well.

Here’s a different quote:

“As a lifelong learner and former teacher, I am so proud that Iowa will be known as the education state,” said First Lady Christie Vilsack. “Iowa’s educational heritage began with a one-room schoolhouse. Now, Iowa’s classrooms represent the future of education where every student has access to the best resources and every opportunity to succeed.”

Maybe they could adopt a new slogan: Iowa: The Edjikayshun state

I see they don’t want to go into intelligent design in depth. I suppose some of them realise that if you look at it in depth there’s nothing there, so they’re contenting themselves with presenting the gift wrapping, which is pretty much all there is anyway.

“I don’t think we should go in-depth with it, just let kids know what it’s about …”

That’s what we’d all like to know.

It’s true, ID is in the news a lot these days, so it wouldn’t make sense to ignore it altogether. These kids are supposed to up on current events, right?

So cover it in social studies - just like you’d cover any political / social / religious phenomenon. Religion is not a dirty word in school; my kid did a social studies module on religions of the world. No problem. Just don’t pretend it’s science.

Russell wrote:

So cover it in social studies - just like you’d cover any political / social / religious phenomenon. Religion is not a dirty word in school; my kid did a social studies module on religions of the world. No problem. Just don’t pretend it’s science.

First of all, I agree with Russell in principle. This was true of my own northern Connecticut school district when I was in high school in the 1970s. Although it wasn’t a rich town, it was at least a somewhat progressive place. One of the English classes in my high school had the title “Mythology and the Bible”.

I feel like U.S. society as a whole has taken a giant step backward since then. Everyone seems so ready to get into someone else’s face on the subject of religion that we can’t discuss it in schools as a force in history, unless we stick completely to religions that don’t really have followers any more, such as the traditions of ancient Greece or Egypt. Maybe I’m missing what’s going on in high schools simply because I don’t have kids, but the comment in another thread about the mother who was just concerned whether her kids would go to heaven really struck home.

Maybe our politicians figure that if they instill enough fear in us about whether we’ll go to heaven, we’ll stop pestering them with inconvenient questions about earthly matters like economic inequality, militarism, racism, and the environment.

Julie Wrote:

Maybe our politicians figure that if they instill enough fear in us about whether we’ll go to heaven, we’ll stop pestering them with inconvenient questions about earthly matters like economic inequality, militarism, racism, and the environment.

While I agree with that statement, I would amend it somewhat:

1. Delete the first word. 2. Replace “figure” with “know from experience”.

i think - than more man knows, then hi more usefull and powerfull, knowledge is power, and school must apply all it’s force to give it.

“I don’t think we should go in-depth with it, just let kids know what it’s about …”

Sounds like someone from the D.I. whispered in their ears:

“We don’t have a textbook or a curriculum yet, so don’t ask for a whole class…”

I feel like U.S. society as a whole has taken a giant step backward since then. Everyone seems so ready to get into someone else’s face on the subject of religion that we can’t discuss it in schools as a force in history, unless we stick completely to religions that don’t really have followers any more, such as the traditions of ancient Greece or Egypt. Maybe I’m missing what’s going on in high schools simply because I don’t have kids, but the comment in another thread about the mother who was just concerned whether her kids would go to heaven really struck home.

I went to a small gradeschool in the north cascades in washington state in the 60’s. It really doesn’t get much more rural than that. I was nearly twenty before I discovered that real people actually believed the crap they spouted at church. I thought is was a big inside joke that people went along with because the church threw picnics. Also, when kids ask each other, “DO you believe in god?” The answer always included the caveat that the bible was imperfect. I thought Christian was a race decended from those who lived in “Christendom” from the king arthur stories.

The ammended phrase:

Our politicians know from experience that if they instill enough fear in us about whether we’ll go to heaven, we’ll stop pestering them with inconvenient questions about earthly matters like economic inequality, militarism, racism, and the environment.

It’s the old zen trick of making the students so damn confused that when they come to understand the point their satori is that much more powerful. Or the christian trick of making the folks feel so damn sinful so that it’s a bigger relief to wash away their sins.

“I know what I believe, but I guess my feeling is I don’t know if I want atheist people in teaching positions trying to talk about intelligent design”

Along with “We’ve been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture”, I think we now have a two-way tie for Best IDC Quote of 2005.

“I know what I believe, but I guess my feeling is I don’t know if I want atheist people in teaching positions trying to talk about intelligent design”

To paraphrase state senator Karin Brownlee of Kansas, we have to set a standard that it’s not culturally acceptable to be bigoted against atheists in America, and I’m not talking about physically beating up people like Paul Brooks when they express such stupidity.

Arden Chatfield wrote

Along with “We’ve been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture”, I think we now have a two-way tie for Best IDC Quote of 2005.

It’s also another instance of Flank’s Law: Keep ‘em talking and they’ll inevitably hang themselves on the Establishment Clause. As Nick Matzke pointed out somewhere, lots of the locals didn’t get the memo that read “Ixnay on the odGay alktay!” Or maybe they couldn’t decode it, it being in a foreign language and all.

RBH

I don’t think we should go in-depth with it, just let kids know what it’s about.

I, on the contrary, think that if you teach it, you should go in depth on it. Really get under the hood and describe the exact mechanisms by which intelligent design takes place. Certainly, the scientific theory of intelligent design should be presented, as well as references to all the peer-reviewed papers on the subject and the research being conducted by ID scientists.

Of course, the absence of such areas should also be pointed out. Loudly.

“We have to set a standard that it’s not culturally acceptable to mock Christianity in America,” she said.

from the article posted above.

What do we do with it then?

“We have to set a standard that it’s not culturally acceptable to mock Christianity in America,” she said.

That’s not an isolated view. IN Great Britain, as I understand it, a law to ban “incitement to religious hatred” is being proposed. See here for an analysis. The problem, of course, is who gets to define “religious hatred”. The proposer of the British law, David Plunkett, apparently claims that “people would still be allowed to express opinions about religion - as long as they were sensible.” Oh, goody. And who gets to define “sensible”?

RBH

“Right now, I’m confident our teachers give students a fair assessment of the creation.”

I predict that within a year Mr. Brooks will insist that he was misquoted by an intimidating reporter.

“We have to set a standard that it’s not culturally acceptable to mock Christianity in America,” she said.

Of course, there are two things (at least) that are really appalling about that quote; one, that she only wants Christianity protected in that way: and two, what on earth does the phrase “set a standard” mean? Let people know you’ll be beaten up, otherwise?

Hm. A bit more from Butterflies and Wheels:

So - is it a human right now not to have to be exposed to, or even run the risk of being exposed to, ‘any statement or act showing a lack of respect towards other people’s religion’? Has that been decided? Officially? I ask because the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is ‘concerned about a Danish newspaper’s caricatures of the Muslim prophet Mohammed and has ‘appointed UN experts in the areas of religious freedom and racism to investigate the matter.’ Uh oh. Experts in the areas of religious freedom are investigating cartoons about the prophet? So - what is religious freedom then? Does it mean the ‘freedom’ of religious people to call the cops (or the UN) whenever anyone says anything they consider blasphemous or disrespectful? If so, what about the freedom of the blasphemers and disrespecters? Have we decided that that’s what religious freedom means - the unrestricted right (and freedom) to silence critics? If so, might that be a bad idea? It seems like a pretty crappy idea to me.

RBH

I would call it more of a “precedent” than a “standard”. We can, however, mock wiccans? Hindus? Muslims are a given. What about the darn animists? Atheist are a given.

And all the while, we can most certainly mock science as “agenda driven hate mongering against christians.

Which brings me to my next point which is: My science background has nothing to do with my agenda-driven hate-mongering against christians.

“Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope.” P.J. O’ROURKE (1947- )

Pedagogically, there’s really no (honestly) getting around the fact that ID is not science, and also, that ID proponents’ claims are frequently dishonest, disingenuous, and painfully unreflective of their own position when attacking evolution. We are not talking about anything resembling a legitimate scientific debate when we’re talking about ID vs. “the Darwinists,” as many ID advocates like to re-label all those who understand the overwhleming evidence for evolution.

As a result, a science class unit (I’m thinking undergraduate-level) on this topic really needn’t be one where students consider the “scientific merits” of “both arguments,” on some sort of a fallaciously-constructed level playing field. Science is not a democracy: because a concept like ID has public support doesn’t magically grant it the predictive power of evidentiary cause and effect that is the cornerstone of scientific endeavours. Because there IS no testable scientific argument for ID– only a contrived and well-funded political PR campaign– it doesn’t, and shouldn’t, get that kind of treatment in a science class. ID instead rests upon a combination of intentionally UN-acknowleded faith, and pseudo-scientific deceptions, to make its arguments. I believe the more clearly a science instructor communicates the evidence showing these “merits” of ID to his/her science students, the better off the students will be in actually understanding the idea when they confront it beyond the classroom. And confront it no doubt they will. Which is why, in my view, ID cannot and should not be avoided in biology class. It should be dealt with head on and actively exposed to the students for what it is.

I am a community college professor in non-majors biology. This week, in our final “lab,” after having covered evolution and natural selection over the two preceding weeks, and after having talked about the scientific method throughout the semester, I required the in-lab reading of articles, and the viewing of two presentations, which dealt with both the (lack of) scientific merit of ID, and the addressing of some of its explicit attacks on evolution. I had them read the recently-discussed NYTimes ID article from last Sunday. I showed Ken Miller’s recent presentation at the American Enterprise Institue’s October 2005 forum on “Science Wars,” which I cannot recommend enough (search for “science wars” at www.aei.org, the entire days events can be streamed and powerpoint presentations downloaded). I also had them read the Discovery Institute fellow Paul Nelson’s handout FAQ about ID given at that same forum, for content comparison. Among many other things, Miller in his presentation shows rather clearly how ID proponents (at least those at the Discovery Institute) are attempting to distance themselves from ‘creation science,’ presumably because of the ‘87 Edwards v. Aguillard decision prohibiting creationism in the classroom. He clearly shows how a structure like the flagellum is not, by Behe’s definition, irreducibly complex. He contextualizes everything by outlining the basic point of Philip Johnson’s Wedge strategy, the underlying rationale for the aggressive advancing of ID. I also covered the basics of the bogus statistical argument behind irreducible complexity, using a simple, intuitive slot-machine analogy. I showed the PBS “Evolution” series streamable video of research into how the mammalian eye could have evolved gradually through a series of relatively-simple selective advances.

All this to say that I tried to leave no stone unturned in dealing with the misrepresentations and disingenuousness of ID. I had class discussion throughout, where some students talked about having been told in middle and high school that faith and science were irreconcilable (Devout Catholic Ken Miller was living proof for them that they are not irreconcilable… I also plugged his book “Finding Darwin’s God” for those who wanted to know more.) And most of them thanked me for it afterwards… for being blunt, and, as one student put it upon my asking them all why they thought I was doing all this, “for giving us a better bullshit detector.”

I slept well.

“I don’t think we should go in-depth with it…”

Details, we don’ need no steenking details… ‘Cause we got no steenking details

This paper gives a nice historical perspective on the development of the theory of noise, from its origins with Brownian motion. It also has some amusing quotes from prominent scientists of the last century denying the existence of atoms with a certainty that can only be matched by today’s Darwinists denying any challenges to evolution

Dembski’s cover story today.

Knowledge is power

Here’s a question for the Muscatine School Board: if ID is NOT about religion, then why is that one clown concerned about an atheist teaching the material?

wallace,

I agree completely about exposing ID for what it really is, in an undergraduate-level science course. I believe that in order to show students what science is, they should be shown what it is not and why.

However, the current issue is not about teaching undergrads. It is about teaching highschoolers. Young ones at that (9th grade I believe) You can’t expect children who are just beginning to learn algebra to be able to see through the ID pseudomath. It would probably make just as much sense to them as real math.

As much as I admire Ken Millers works Im afraid I really do not see any rapprochement between faith and science,though many well-meaning scholars may think it desirable.A common ground may be neither possible or desirable,as there seems to be something deep in religious faith that inhibits mental freedom. Science is inquiry,religion is presupposition,reasoning people do not accept religious dogma without evidence,faith requires no evidence.Science may never have all the answers,but has solved a great many questions,religion has a answer for everything, but has solved nothing.So we have a choice between the hard truth of science or a comforting fantasy,you cannot have both

These people fear, rather than savor, the fact of uncertainty. They are ashamed, rather than revel in, the limits that are life.

It would be fine with me that they “live” like this, though I pity them for pretending not to feel what we must feel, being alive, but I can never agree with them, nor stand by when they insist upon making disfigurement obligatory upon others.

” Ann Hart, vice president of the Muscatine School Board, said she would not remove evolution from the school district’s curriculum, because of its scientific basis, but that students should also know about intelligent design.”

That struck me as a revealing quote. What she meant to say was, “would not remove evolution from the school district’s curriculum, because of its scientific basis in reality, but that students should also know about intelligent design despite its lack of any basis in reality.”

limpidense said on December 9, 2005 04:25 PM:

“These people fear, rather than savor, the fact of uncertainty. They are ashamed, rather than revel in, the limits that are life.

It would be fine with me that they “live” like this, though I pity them for pretending not to feel what we must feel, being alive, but I can never agree with them, nor stand by when they insist upon making disfigurement obligatory upon others.” - - - - - - I think that they are more than fearful and ashamed; fear and shame lead them to be threatened by those who revel in uncertainty and use it to gain new knowledge about the universe and all the things in it. That is why it is not enough that they “live” like that; they must also try so hard to suppress science and those who would use it.

Fear leads to shame. Shame leads to anger. Anger leads to the DARK SIDE!

Giggles and Laughs, Paul

“We have to set a standard that it’s not culturally acceptable to mock Christianity in America,” she said.

I find this very interesting. I had thought the “hate speech” debate in America was (rightfully) dead, but between this quote above; and the outrage over Kansas University’s Prof. Mirecki and the “fundies” email; and Fox News’ “People Who Say ‘Happy Holidays’ Hate Christians” campaign; it seems calls for regulation of “hate speech” are gradually but surely worming their way back of late.

Of course, there’s a difference here, in that last time the “hate speech” meme was being unsuccessfully pushed, it concerned a very general sort of “hate speech”, often specifically referring to hateful speech which could be directly linked to acts of violence. Whereas this time it somewhat appears that apparently the only group which needs protection is the Christians.

If this continues, I wonder whether will see right-wing commentators denouncing comments like “we have to set a standard that it’s not culturally acceptable to mock Christianity in America” with the same vitriol they used last decade when college campuses were banning people from advocating the murder of black people. Probably not. Oh well…

When they outlaw the mocking of christians, only outlaws will mock christians.

I’m not a fig plucker nor a fig plucker’s son but I’ll pluck figs till the fig plucker comes ~:0

It’s also another instance of Flank’s Law: Keep ‘em talking and they’ll inevitably hang themselves on the Establishment Clause.

I just LOVE it when fundies oblige us by shooting themselves in the head.

“let kids know what it’s about”

just amazing how so many people who can’t be bothered to learn enough about it to take part in a basic argument are so insistent on the kids learning about it. I really think the “debate” should be more focused along the lines of “you stupid pig faced moron why don’t you go get a clue before you open your stupid yap on the matter”. there’s no point trying to descend deeper into the debate if nobody is pointing out to these people how completely ill-equipped they are to be taking any sort of position.

Dear Ms Hart,

I was very glad to hear about your plans to teach Intelligent Design to kids, as reported in the Muscatine Journal [1]. Having a school board willing to champion the teaching of FSMism [2] and the like can only provide a good example to the rest of the world.

{My name goes here}

[1] http://www.muscatinejournal.com/art[…]17292433.txt [2] http://www.venganza.org - don’t forget the pirate regalia!

——– That’s the email I’m planning to send anyway. I’m hoping she’ll get curious about what the heck FSMism is before just filing the email under “support”… What do you guys think? Too subtle or just right?

Dembski’s cover story today. Knowledge is power

Well, well, well.

Note Knowledge not TRUTH

What does he know that he is not telling us

Have a guess who said the following

Knowledge and Propaganda

My dear fellow party members!

Our theme this evening is hotly disputed. I realize that my viewpoint is subjective. There is really little point to discussing propaganda. It is a matter of practice, not of theory. One cannot determine theoretically whether one propaganda is better than another. Rather, that propaganda is good that has the desired results, and that propaganda is bad that does not lead to the desired results. It does not matter how clever it is, for the task of propaganda is not to be clever, its task is to lead to success. I therefore avoid theoretical discussions about propaganda, for there is no point to it. Propaganda shows that it is good if over a certain period it can win over and fire up people for an idea. If it fails to do so, it is bad propaganda. If propaganda wins the people it wanted to win, it was presumably good, and if not, it was presumably bad. No one can say that your propaganda is too crude or low or brutal, or that it is not decent enough, for those are not the relevant criteria. Its purpose is not to be decent, or gentle, or weak, or modest; it is to be successful. That is why I have intentionally chosen to discuss propaganda along with a second theme, knowledge. Otherwise, our discussion this evening would be of little value. We have not gathered to discuss lovely theories, but rather to find ways of practically working together to deal with our everyday challenges.

What is propaganda, and what role does it have in political life? That is the question of greatest interest to us. How should propaganda look, and what is its role in our movement? Is it an end in itself, or only a means to an end? We must discuss that, but we can do that only when we begin with the origin of propaganda itself, namely the idea, then move to the target of propaganda, namely people.

Ideas in themselves are timeless. They are not tied to individuals, much less to a people. They rest in a people, it is true, and affect their attitudes. Ideas, people say, are in the clouds. When someone comes along who can put in words what everyone feels in their hearts, each feels: “Yes! That is what I have always wanted and hoped for.” That is what happens the first time one hears one of Hitler’s major speeches. I have met people who had attended a Hitler meeting for the first time, and at the end they said: “This man put in words everything I have been searching for for years. For the first time, someone gave form to what I want.” Others are lost in confusion, but suddenly someone stands up and puts it in words. Goethe’s words become reality: “Lost in silent misery, God gave someone to express my suffering.”

Some kind of idea is at the beginning of every political movement. It is not necessary to put this idea in a thick book, nor that it take political form in a hundred long paragraphs. History proves that the greatest world movements have always developed when their leaders knew how to unify their followers under a short, clear theme. That is clear from the French Revolution, or Cromwell’s movement, or Buddhism, Islam, or Christianity. Christ’s goal was clear and simple: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” He gathered his followers behind that straightforward statement. Because this teaching was simple, crisp, clear, and understandable, enabling the broad masses to stand behind it, it in the end conquered the world.

One then builds a whole system of thought on such a brief, crisply formulated idea. The idea does not remain limited to this single statement, rather it is applied to every aspect of daily life and becomes the guide for all human activity — politics, culture, the economy, every area of human behavior. It becomes a worldview. We see that in all great revolutionary movements, which begin with a clear, crisp, understandable, all-encompassing idea. They spread more and more and become a mirror of life that reflects all activities of the peoples, and indeed in a particular way.

Then one can say that a person has a worldview—not because he knows a lot or has read a lot—but because he sees all of life from a certain standpoint, and measures everything by a certain standard. I am a Christian when I believe that the meaning of my life is the heavy responsibility to love my neighbor as myself. Kant once said: “Act as if the principle of your life could be the principle for your entire nation.” I am a National Socialist not when I want this or that from politics, rather when I consider all aspects of daily life. I must act in all things by putting the good of the whole above my personal good, by putting the good of the state above my personal good. But then I also have the guarantee that such a state will be able to protect my personal life. I am a National Socialist when I see everything in politics, culture or the economy from this standpoint. I therefore do not evaluate the theater from the standpoint of whether it is elegant or amusing, rather I ask: Is it good for my people, is it useful for them, does it strengthen the community? If so, the community in turn can benefit, support and strengthen me. I do not see the economy as some sort of way of making money, rather I want an economy that will strengthen the people, make them healthy and powerful. Then too I can expect that this people will support and maintain me. If I see things in this way, I see the economy in National Socialist terms.

If I develop this crisp, clear idea into a system of thought that includes all human drives, wishes and actions, I have a worldview.

As an idea develops into a worldview, the goal is the state. The knowledge does not remain the property of a certain group, but fights for power. It is not just the fantasy of a few people among the people, rather it becomes the idea of the rulers, the circles that have power. The view does not only preach, but it is carried out in practice. Then the idea becomes the worldview of the state. The worldview has become a government organism when it seizes power and can influence life not only in theory, but in practical everyday life. ….…… http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb54.htm

Thats right.….. look up Knowledge is Power and most of the links point to Joseph Goebbels and its missuse by the state.

Corkscrew,

Too subtle by a long shot. They won’t bother with the links and will thing that FSMism is a branch of Baptists or something.

John Wallace said: I agree completely about exposing ID for what it really is, in an undergraduate-level science course. I believe that in order to show students what science is, they should be shown what it is not and why.

However, the current issue is not about teaching undergrads. It is about teaching highschoolers. Young ones at that (9th grade I believe) You can’t expect children who are just beginning to learn algebra to be able to see through the ID pseudomath. It would probably make just as much sense to them as real math.

Its not hard to see what the Fundies are up to here.

He alone, who owns the youth, gains the Future! – Adolf Hitler, speech at the Reichsparteitag, 1935

Anger leads to the DARK SIDE!

(shaking fist) If only you understood the POWER of the Dark Side !

(sound of heavy breathing)

;>

Seriously, if people are not pissed off by something, they won’t get off their butts to DO something about it.

“Anger” is exactly what we NEED.

Be pissed off. Be VERY pissed off.

“Hey Pete, c’mon. It was just a little sex with a goat. The goat didn’t mind.”

Someone just left this as part of a comment on my blog. They are referring to St. Peter.

BWE interesting isn’t it Thats the one thing Fundies are sooo scared of. The best BS detector ever devised by man. The scientific method otherwise known as the enlightenment.

To be fair, as I recall, “knowledge is power” appears in Francis Bacon, where it means something like “knowledge leads to technology and industry”.

Keith.…. being fair is the Devils work :)

Bacon I suspect knew more than he let on

Francis Bacon:

Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Proposition touching Amendment of Laws.

“I think somewhere along the line, intelligent design should be brought up because a lot of people believe in it; and, otherwise, kids aren’t going to understand it as well as they should,” Hart said. “I don’t think we should go in-depth with it, just let kids know what it’s about and that it’s what some people believe and then go on to evolution. I believe in evolution, for sure, but we do need to let kids know this is something that people believe.”

They keyword there is “believe”. Now data or published supporting theory.…they just believe…so now, based on a belief of a few, we should teach, indoctrinate…this belief out to all the children whether they or their parents believe it or not?

“I don’t think we should go in-depth with it, just let kids know what it’s about and that it’s what some people believe and then go on to evolution. I believe in evolution, for sure, but we do need to let kids know this is something that people believe.”

I could go along with that.

“Kids, before we discuss evolution, we’re going to briefly discuss Intelligent Design.

“You need to know that some people believe they can re-name biblical creationism as ‘ID’ and fool you into thinking there’s scientific evidence for it. They also believe that renaming the biblical God ‘The Designer’ somehow makes it not religious.

“You also need to know that there is no scientific evidence for ID. ID is not science. There is no scientific theory of ID. There are no scientific hypotheses of ID. And of course, you all understand what scientific theories and hypotheses are, and how the scientific method works, because that’s the very first thing we covered this year.

“Now, we’re not going to go in-depth with this. You all have a good understanding of what science is, so you shouldn’t have any trouble confirming for yourself that ID is not science, if you decide you want to look into it further.

“OK, now that that’s out of the way, let’s move on to the theory of evolution.…”

No doubt that’s what Hart had in mind, right?

Paul Brooks Wrote:

I know what I believe, but I guess my feeling is I don’t know if I want atheist people in teaching positions trying to talk about intelligent design,” he said. “If I could determine who the instructors were, that’d be different

Paul Brooks takes his shot at becoming the intellectual heir to Bill Buckingham.

BWE Wrote:

I’m not a fig plucker nor a fig plucker’s son but I’ll pluck figs till the fig plucker comes ~:0

I’m not a pheasant plucker, I’m the pheasant plucker’s mate And I’m only plucking pheasants Cos the pheasant plucker’s late

(If you have no clue what we’re talking about, try saying it fast 5 times. Preferably not in polite company)

“I don’t think we should go in-depth with it, just let kids know what it’s about and that it’s what some people believe and then go on to evolution.”

Not go in depth?

Like how deep can you go?

LMAO!

JONBOY Wrote:

”…Im afraid I really do not see any rapprochement between faith and science,though many well-meaning scholars may think it desirable.A common ground may be neither possible or desirable…” (emphasis added)

The point is, there is no common ground. That’s why there really is no conflict. Most scientists and theologians, I think, realize that you don’t need to reconcile faith and science. Neither actually encroaches on the space of the other, until and unless you are trying to compare/contrast/reconcile. You’ll do far better with apples and oranges.

Rumblings in Muscatine IA

“I don’t think we should go in-depth with it, just let kids know what it’s about …”

Translation:

“Teach the controversy”

”…I don’t know if I want atheist people in teaching positions trying to talk about intelligent design.…”

Translation:

“I want my religion snuck into science class properly.”

Don Wrote:

You’ll do far better with apples and oranges.

Indeed.

Apples and Oranges – A Comparison

by Scott A. Sandford, NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain View, California … Conclusions

Not only was this comparison easy to make, but it is apparent from the figure that apples and oranges are very similar. Thus, it would appear that the comparing apples and oranges defense should no longer be considered valid. This is a somewhat startling revelation. It can be anticipated to have a dramatic effect on the strategies used in arguments and discussions in the future.

Qetzal Wrote:

“Kids, before we discuss evolution, we’re going to briefly discuss Intelligent Design.

“You need to know that some people believe they can re-name biblical creationism as ‘ID’ and fool you into thinking there’s scientific evidence for it. They also believe that renaming the biblical God ‘The Designer’ somehow makes it not religious.

“You also need to know that there is no scientific evidence for ID. ID is not science. There is no scientific theory of ID. There are no scientific hypotheses of ID. And of course, you all understand what scientific theories and hypotheses are, and how the scientific method works, because that’s the very first thing we covered this year.

“Now, we’re not going to go in-depth with this. You all have a good understanding of what science is, so you shouldn’t have any trouble confirming for yourself that ID is not science, if you decide you want to look into it further.

“OK, now that that’s out of the way, let’s move on to the theory of evolution.…”

No doubt that’s what Hart had in mind, right?

That, of course, is why Paul Brooks of the Muscatine School Board doesn’t want “atheistic people” talking about ID.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Tara Smith published on December 9, 2005 11:31 AM.

God, Science, and Kooky Kansans was the previous entry in this blog.

More DI dishonesty and obfuscation is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter