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)
“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?
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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 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:
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.
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.
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
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, 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.
from the article posted above.
What do we do with it then?
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
I predict that within a year Mr. Brooks will insist that he was misquoted by an intimidating reporter.
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:
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
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
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
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
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.
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
(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.
http://www.creationdesign.org/Evolu[…]0Action.html
You guys just don’t get it.
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 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 takes his shot at becoming the intellectual heir to Bill Buckingham.
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!
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
Indeed.
Apples and Oranges – A Comparison
That, of course, is why Paul Brooks of the Muscatine School Board doesn’t want “atheistic people” talking about ID.
Update