The Win in Ohio

| 148 Comments | 10 TrackBacks

UPDATE 2: MP3 of Board debate on the motion

Update: Text of the motion is now below the fold

Ohio is no longer on the Disco Institute’s list of favorite states for pilgrimages. Late this afternoon, by an 11-4 vote, the Ohio State Board of Education stripped out the intelligent-design creationist “critical analysis of evolution” benchmark, indicator, and lesson plan from the 10th Grade Biology curriculum.

I do not yet have the exact text of the resolution – it was amended somewhat in flight, so I have to transcribe the recording to get the precise wording. But the resolution had four main parts: It’s below the fold.

1. Eliminate the “critical analysis of evolution” benchmark and indicator from the Science Standards.

2. Eliminate the “Critical Analysis of Evolution” model lesson plan from the Model Curriculum..

3. Instruct the Achievement Committee (formerly the Standards Committee) to consider whether the benchmark, indicator, and lesson plan should be replaced with something more acceptable.

4. Instruct the Ohio Department of Education to notify every school district in Ohio of these actions.

The press release of Ohio Citizens for Science, distributed immediately after the vote, is below the fold. Later tonight when I have transcribed the final form of the motion from the recording I’ll post that below the fold as well.

Text of the motion:

Resolution to Modify the Ohio State Science Standards and Model Curriculum

Resolved, that the Superintendent of Public Instruction be, and she hereby is, directed to take the following actions immediately:

1) Delete the model lesson plan, Critical Analysis of Evolution, from the state board-approved curriculum and remove its availability from print sources, technology sources, and any other Ohio Board of Education/Ohio Department of Education mechanism that makes it available for use.

2) Delete the following sentences from Grade 10 Life Science Benchmark H: “Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this benchmark does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.)”, and delete Indicator 23 in its entirety, and adjust all print sources, technology sources, and any other Ohio Board of Education/Ohio Department of Education documents to reflect the removal;

3) The Achievement Committee of the Sate Board of Education is charged to consider whether the deleted model lesson, Benchmark H and Indicator 23 shoud be replaced by a different benchmark, lesson, and indicator, and if so, to present any recommendation to the entire State Board for adoption;

4) Communicate the fact of the above actions to all public school superintendents and high school principals in Ohio.

Ohio Citizens for Science Press Release February 14, 2006 For Immediate Release

The Directors and members of Ohio Citizens for Science applaud the Ohio State Board of Education for removing the creationist material from the State Standards and Model Curriculum.

We are pleased that Members of the Board have affirmed the importance of honest science education in Ohio public schools, and we stand ready to assist the Board however we can in advancing that effort.

We are still vigilant, as are our allies. Efforts to undermine excellent science education will not stop here, and as Kansas learned to its regret, relaxation can be dangerous. We urge the Board, the Ohio Department of Education, and concerned citizens to continue to work to improve Ohio’s public schools

10 TrackBacks

In a memorable passage from his landmark ruling, Judge Jones argued that science could not be defined differently for "students than it is defined in the scientific community as an affirmative action program". Ohio seems to have followed this sound a... Read More

One of the more recent 'battlegrounds' in the US concerning the teaching of good science has now been resolved with science carrying the day. Read More

In a memorable passage from his landmark ruling, Judge Jones argued that science could not be defined differently for "students than it is defined in the scientific community as an affirmative action program". Ohio seems to have followed this sound a... Read More

Ohio Wakes Up from The Austringer on February 15, 2006 10:52 AM

On the 14th, the state of Ohio took notice that its “teach the controversy” position, using the phrase “critical analysis”, was actually implemented in such a way that it endorsed creationist argument. The state board voted to ... Read More

Miracles DO happen. Wesley claims he didn’t change anything but trackbacks all of a sudden started appearing. It’s a miracle! ... Read More

Thanks to RBH at The Panda's Thumb for posting the text of this resolution. Resolved, that the Superintendent of Public Instruction be, and she hereby is, directed to take the following actions immediately: 1) Delete the model lesson plan, Critical... Read More

Well! What exciting news out of Ohio! The state school board removed language from the curriculum requiring “critical analysis” of evolution. I won’t get into the details, as they are better covered at The Panda’s Thumb, but ... Read More

Oh yeah, baby--Richard has the dish over on Panda's Thumb: Ohio is no longer on the Disco Institute's list of favorite states for pilgrimages. Late this afternoon, by an 11-4 vote, the Ohio State Board of Education stripped out the... Read More

The Thumbsmen of Panda are ecstatic that the Ohio State Board of Education has removed “critical analysis of evolution” from its standards (see here). Question: Is there any other field of inquiry — other than evolution, that is ̵... Read More

I’m genuinely confused. Can some of the more experienced IDers explain why critcism of evolutionary theory is supressed within the scientific community? Comment by Kibitz — February 15, 2006 @ 7:19 pm It’s really simple. 72% of the most ... Read More

148 Comments

Good going for Ohio!

It’s pretty obvious that the Dover decision is having its impact, as it rightly should, all over the country.

The DI can whine and pout all they what, but what was bound to happen happened: the courts opened up a king size can of whip ass on them for being the deceitful politicos they’ve been from the start.

They can call Jones an activist judge until they’re blue in the face, but school boards and boards of education all over the country are heeding the warning: ID is creationism, plain and simple.

This is certainly not the end of the anti-evolution movement. As long as there are people who feel an existential threat from science, especially evolutionary biology, we’ll have people like the DI to contend with.

But to quote Flounder from Animal House, watching them get pounded with defeat after defeat, “Oh boy, is this great!”

The Gory Details (for those that are interested):

Colleen Grady was recognized by the Board President Westendorf to offer her “pre-emptive” motion before Martha Wise (who has fought this ID nonsense from Day 1 and deserves the thanks of a grateful nation) was allowed to offer hers. Grady’s was to request legal advice from Atty. General Petro (running for Gov. of course, and probably anxious to prove his religious right bona fides).

Wise offered her motion AS AN AMENDMENT, REPLACING Grady’s motion. After consultation with the Board’s official lawyer to see if that was kosher, it was allowed, over strenuous objections of ID advocate Deborah Owens-Fink.

Then Eric Okerson offered HIS motion as an amendment to Grady’s motion, AS ALREADY AMENDED by replacement with Wise’s motion. His amendment was to remove the lesson plan and the benchmark immediately, but to charge the “Achievement Committee” (previously known as the “Standards Committee, the one that produced the flawed benchmark and lesson plan in the first place) with coming up with replacements. Carl Wick wanted assurances that the committee was free to retain anything “good” about the current lesson plan in their eventual re-do, and was assured that yes, that was OK. (So don’t relax your guard, folks!) Are you with me so far?

Cochran and Owens-Fink, of course, voiced their strenuous (and, might I add parenthetically, obnoxious) objections, partly because 3 members who had originally approved the unfortunate lesson last month were absent. Then there was a nested series of votes: first on the Okerson’s amendment, than on Martha Wise’s amendment, and finally on the whole package.

All were in favor EXCEPT: Owens-Fink, Cochran, Grady and Westendorf.

I should point out that Grady’s motion, to request a legal opinion from the Attorney General, would have left the problematic language in place until such time as he got around to replying - which, given the fact that he’s trying to out-right-wing Kenneth Blackwell - would probably mean either (1) he’d stall as long as possible, or (2) say Intelligent Design (oh, excuse me) “teach the controversy” is hunky-dory, as did Dover’s legal advisor.

Kansas, you’re next.

Weren’t we supposed to get some Waterlii? I can’t recall, all these legal victories keep distracting me.

the courts opened up a king size can of whip ass on them for being the deceitful politicos they’ve been from the start…

I believe the correct usage is “whup ass”.

:p

and just to reiterate what I’m sure everyone here is feeling..

WOOT!

Excellent, excellent news!! Great job to all of you! So, did anyone see the short woman with the baby walk in to the meeting at around 9:30 this morning? That would be me. LOL! I was planning for my son to be asleep by the time I got there so that I could have just held him sleeping for a while, but he had other ideas.

We can do a little victory jig, but we also need a victory song. Okay, I’ll start it, but only a few verses:

(To the tune of Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic) Everything you do, oh Casey Luskin, Everything you do just goes so wrong,

okay, somebody take it–

OK, let’s talk possible future scenarios —- my understanding is that the standards will now get sent back to committee (the same committee that wrote them in the first place, yes?) to get re-written. Suppose that this committee replies with “Those are the standards we want, tough luck if you don’t like them”. Then what?

Methinks “The Wedge” got at least 10 years longer :)

Lenny asked

OK, let’s talk possible future scenarios —— my understanding is that the standards will now get sent back to committee (the same committee that wrote them in the first place, yes?) to get re-written. Suppose that this committee replies with “Those are the standards we want, tough luck if you don’t like them”. Then what?

The motion that was passed required that any new benchmark, indicator, and/or standard must come back to the full board for approval. That question was raised in the debate, and it was answered by observing that to do so would be interpreted (parliamentarily) as a motion to reconsider, and would therefore be out of order for a committee to bring. Further, the instruction was not to “send the benchmark, etc., back to committee”, but rather was to charge the committee to see if something new was needed to replace the deleted items. Again, I have to slog through several hours of digital recording to reconstruct the final form of the motion that was finally passed, as amended, but that specific point was discussed and dismissed.

And if the committee did actually try that, I’m certain that the moderate majority on the board would nuke it as a flat insult to their vote today. Several of them stuck their political necks out to deep-six the crap, and if the committee tried to bring it back they’d nuke it. Even Owens-Fink isn’t that politically stupid.

RBH

The motion that was passed required that any new benchmark, indicator, and/or standard must come back to the full board for approval. That question was raised in the debate, and it was answered by observing that to do so would be interpreted (parliamentarily) as a motion to reconsider, and would therefore be out of order for a committee to bring. Further, the instruction was not to “send the benchmark, etc., back to committee”, but rather was to charge the committee to see if something new was needed to replace the deleted items. Again, I have to slog through several hours of digital recording to reconstruct the final form of the motion that was finally passed, as amended, but that specific point was discussed and dismissed.

And if the committee did actually try to bring back the same crap, I’m certain that the moderate middle on the board would regard it as a flat insult to their vote today. Several of them stuck their political necks out to deep-six the crap, and if the committee tried to bring it back essentially unchanged they’d vote to nuke it. Even Owens-Fink isn’t that politically stupid.

Well, then it seems as if “teach the controversy” is pretty much a dead fish.

So, what does DI have left to rally around?

Got to love the evolutionnews.org (IDist) web site:

“Darwinists Bully Ohio School Board into Censoring Teaching of Evolution”

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/0[…]chool_b.html

Sir Toejam Wrote:

I believe the correct usage is “whup ass”.

On this topic, I think the phrase is “flagellum ass.”

Lenny says “So, what does DI have left to rally around?”

South Carolina, perhaps?

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/13865980.htm

I mean, if this ever gets out of the quicksand of the state legislature, I’m sure it’d get the same smackdown in court that it has elsewhere. I’m still pissed off that my state is wasting time on this garbage.

Good for Ohio, though!

“Darwin-only activists are dumbing down the teaching of evolution and stopping science learning,” said Casey Luskin

This coming from a guy who supposedly quit biology! Wonder why the disco guys are fretting over science standards. Who’s preventing them conducting scientific research?

Please accept my heartfelt congratulations and thanks to each of you that worked so hard to make this possible.

Lenny says “So, what does DI have left to rally around?”

South Carolina, perhaps?

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/13865980.ht…

I mean, if this ever gets out of the quicksand of the state legislature, I’m sure it’d get the same smackdown in court that it has elsewhere. I’m still pissed off that my state is wasting time on this garbage.

Well, the Kansas Kooks won’t survive a court challenge either.

But what I meant was, now that ID “theory” is dead, and “teach the controversy” is also dead, what’s left for them? Now that they can’t teach their, uh, “alternative scientific theory”, and can’t teach the, uh, “scientific evidence against evolution”, what’s left for them to present?

david gehrig:

On this topic, I think the phrase is “flagellum ass.”

Poor li’l wing butts–fresh out of propellors.

That’ll teach them to go ‘round and’round in circles!

Well, the Kansas Kooks won’t survive a court challenge either.

Well, we shall see, oh yeah. We shall seeee.

In the meantime, I have a sincere question for Lenny or RBH especially:

Has Ohio’s definition of science specifically been repealed or altered in any way, shape or form, by this board action?

Congrats Ohio! Here’s hoping that a similar resolution can be replicated here in Kansas.

If you’re in the mood to kick back and celebrate, you might want to listen to the song I wrote about ID (before it becomes totally outdated).

But what I meant was, now that ID “theory” is dead, and “teach the controversy” is also dead, what’s left for them? Now that they can’t teach their, uh, “alternative scientific theory”, and can’t teach the, uh, “scientific evidence against evolution”, what’s left for them to present?

The same thing they had before … nothing. :) This doesn’t stop people like SC’s Sen. Fair from trying to push it through anyway.

I just hope SC’s board of education does what Ohio’s did.

FL has a point here. Has anyone read the story in the news section of the latest issue of Science? In Kansas, something like 6 of the 8 creationists are up for re-election this year, and are being opposed by, well, opponents who are being very very careful NOT to make ‘intelligent design’ or indeed anything to do with evolution the issue here. These people are quick to admit that, while they will come out in favor of teaching science in science class if asked, if they made evolution the issue they’d almost surely lose.

Fact is, a solid majority of Kansas citizens WANT Jeezus in science class, and everywhere else. There is noplace Jeezus doesn’t belong front and center, in the opinion of enough voters to elect any state-wide candidate. Yes, of course most Kansans want science taught in science class. But they agree with Dembski - anything that denies Jeezus can’t be good, not good science, not good hygiene, not good auto mechanics.

It’s clearly not a matter of rousing the non-fanatical sleeping majority and getting them to the polls to throw out the zealots. It’s a tricky political tapdance, and the pro-science candidates are carefully targeting other issues like spending, scheduling, and whatever. On a straight up-or-down vote, evolution would get slaughtered in Kansas by anything close to a cross-section of voters.

I always thought it was “whoop ass.” The OED lists both whup and whoop as slang derivatives of whip, therefore I think we have to concede that “whip ass” is at least a proper form.

Regardless, looks like the Wedge has turned into a Wedgie.

Everything you do, oh Casey Luskin, Everything you do just goes so wrong,

A Casey whose hungry mouth is prest Against the DI’s flowing breast;

Who intimately lives without a brain; Dude, you give me a big migrane.

But only God can make a tree…

Rather than screw around figuring out how to toss off-topic comments to the Bathroom Wall, I’m merely going to delete them, as I just have three in a derail generated by Andy H/Larry Fafa. Sorry, RGD and ST_J, but they’re gone. I doubt that you’ll miss them. [chuckle]

RBH

Hey Mr. RBH you can delete my posts any time you feel like it buddy. Because you rock, Cleveland rocks, and the whole freaking state of Ohio rocks too. By the way, some of the radio stations around here are reporting that Intelligent Design is “a form of creationism”, as well they should.

Thanks Mr. RBH!

RBH Wrote:

And if the committee did actually try that, I’m certain that the moderate majority on the board would nuke it as a flat insult to their vote today. Several of them stuck their political necks out to deep-six the crap, and if the committee tried to bring it back they’d nuke it. Even Owens-Fink isn’t that politically stupid.

Moreover, while Cochran’s one of the co-chairs on the committee, the other co-chair is Jim Craig, who was one of the ones voting to kill the lesson plan this time (though he’s been for it in the past.) Wise is on it too, so hopefully they can leaven any new attempts at insanity.

It seemed that one of the big lessons most Board members had learned was, “Next time, check and see what the scientists you consulted with actually think.” Many of them stated that before this whole flap they had no idea how strong the opposition was to this plan within their science advisory committee and the DoE’s science staff. Hopefully they’ll be working harder to listen for that next time…I think they’ve learned that they can’t really trust Cochran and Fink to do that for them!

Amusing moment in the closing period when members of the public were speaking–a history/philosophy student got up to explain that linking ID with religion and particularly (he said) Christianity was a “red herring.” ID and evolution(!) were both well-established philosophies long before Darwin and we should judge them on philosophical merit, and not assume people push ID just because they’re religious. The next speaker up began by saying (paraphrased), “This is really all about trust in the Bible.” She continued to talk about how she used to live a life of sin before coming to Jesus, and how evolution caused people to reject God and set themselves up as gods, etc., and basically demolished the previous speaker’s claim. As Lenny says, fundamentalists are really really bad at pretending it’s not a religious issue.

Oh, there was also an old gentleman who spoke on human/dinosaur coexistence and handed out a paper showing stegosaurs on Cambodian temple walls and styracosaurs on Hebrew temple walls. No one on the board seemed to want to discuss this with him.

natural world

I’m sure you guys have discussed this ad nauseum, and stick by your conclusion, but I’m not so clear on how eliminating ID from the curriculum is a good thing. Isn’t this what public education is for? If people don’t hear it from science teachers, can we expect they’ll learn it from their parents?

I guess you can’t really trust science teachers to get the nuance of ID’s failure, or trust them all to follow the guidelines. Yet, ID is one of the biggest boondoggles peddled to God-fearing citizens in quite a while–is it not better to illuminate this, the proximate source of this deception, and arm kids with the material to at least be skeptical?

Maybe teaching evolution is enough, and you realy do leave the rest to parents. I sympathize with you guys, but when I hear that we fought to remove “critical analysis of evolution” (even though the title could be a misleading lie), it makes me a little worried–like we’re giving up a great opportunity.

Faidon said:

“Sheesh. Is that guy always like that?”

Yes. DaveScot runs UD like minitrue after taking his cue from Dembski who deletes threads that are embarrassing to him. In this case DaveScot thought he had something on PT and boasted about his computing knowledge compared to Wesley’s. It seems that when he was shown to be clueless about trackbacks that the blog was purged accordingly.

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 99, byte 99 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Henry J wrote

The title at the top of this article has an extra b > tag following it, that’s causing the text below that to be bold fonted clear to the end of the page. (It’s also affecting the main index page.)

Oops. Fixed. Thanks.

Henry J wrote

The title at the top of this article has an extra b > tag following it, that’s causing the text below that to be bold fonted clear to the end of the page. (It’s also affecting the main index page.)

Oops. Fixed. Thanks.

no doubt Dave Scott will think this a miracle too.

(He’s easily impressed, after all).

*snicker*

Andy H is trying to give some free legal advice and as Dover found out, there is no free lunch :-)

A member of the board called for an emergency motion. The chair of the board has the power to rule on admitting such a motion or not. Since the press had been alerted to the possibility of an emergency motion, the board’s actions meet the state of Ohio’s requirement for public meetings.

Check out the rules and regulations Andy. Always a good place to start. Read what it says about emergency motions and emergency meetings and requirements of public meetings to be announced to the public.

Comment #80577 Posted by PvM on February 17, 2006 01:57 PM

Andy H is trying to give some free legal advice and as Dover found out, there is no free lunch :-)

A member of the board called for an emergency motion. The chair of the board has the power to rule on admitting such a motion or not. Since the press had been alerted to the possibility of an emergency motion, the board’s actions meet the state of Ohio’s requirement for public meetings.

Check out the rules and regulations Andy. Always a good place to start. Read what it says about emergency motions and emergency meetings and requirements of public meetings to be announced to the public.

OK, I will go over this again. Here is the relevant statute, Ohio Revised Code Section 121.22 (F) –

(F) Every public body, by rule, shall establish a reasonable method whereby any person may determine the time and place of all regularly scheduled meetings and the time, place, and purpose of all special meetings. A public body shall not hold a special meeting unless it gives at least twenty-four hours’ advance notice to the news media that have requested notification, except in the event of an emergency requiring immediate official action. In the event of an emergency, the member or members calling the meeting shall notify the news media that have requested notification immediately of the time, place, and purpose of the meeting.

The rule shall provide that any person, upon request and payment of a reasonable fee, may obtain reasonable advance notification of all meetings at which any specific type of public business is to be discussed. Provisions for advance notification may include, but are not limited to, mailing the agenda of meetings to all subscribers on a mailing list or mailing notices in self-addressed, stamped envelopes provided by the person.

The “emergency” provisions above expressly apply only to “special” meetings, whereas these board of education meetings are regularly scheduled meetings, though it is reasonable to allow for emergencies at regularly scheduled meetings too.

ORC 121.22(F) above provides that “any person.…may obtain reasonable advance notification,” as opposed to the 24-hour notification – or less in an emergency – given to the media in the case of special meetings (by reasonable extension, this notification rule for emergencies that call for special meetings should also apply to emergency motions at regularly scheduled meetings ). In the case of the evolution lesson plan, the board of education is clearly abusing its power to take emergency action. At the January meeting, the lame excuse given for the emergency vote on the lesson plan was the alleged threat of a lawsuit following the Dover decision. No excuse at all was given for the emergency vote at the February meeting. The Board is abusing its emergency action power to (1) avoid giving reasonable advance public notice of discussion and voting on the evolution lesson plan and (2) avoid hearing public comments on the lesson plan until after the vote. This is an “abuse of discretion” kind of thing. Under the Brown Act of California, it takes almost a veritable disaster to qualify as an “emergency.” I don’t understand why the interested parties in Ohio put up with this kind of crap. Are they going to read the riot act to the Board now, or just sit back and wait for the Board to take another “emergency action” on the lesson plan (as may very well happen if the writing committee submits a revised plan) ? I would just seek an injunction prohibiting the board from ever again treating the lesson plan as an “emergency” and from ever again voting on the lesson plan before hearing public comments.

There is no scenario under which the lesson plan could be an emergency issue. Suppose, for example, that the Board is sued over the lesson plan, loses in court, and then has only 30 days to decide whether to appeal. Instead of treating the situation as an emergency, the board could just tentatively file an appeal and then decide at a future meeting whether to continue it. This would also buy the board time to consider any complex issues. Are you beginning to get the idea ?

Also, lawsuits are great publicity generators ! People should be taught in high school and college how to sue the government on their own so that they do not have to pay the exorbitant fees that attorneys demand.

As for Dover – I think that it is wrong to conclude that the Dover defendants’ legal representation was bad just because it was free and the defendants lost. The Dover defendants screwed up so badly that there was no dream team that could have saved them.

Andy H Wrote:

There is no scenario under which the lesson plan could be an emergency issue. Suppose, for example, that the Board is sued over the lesson plan, loses in court, and then has only 30 days to decide whether to appeal. Instead of treating the situation as an emergency, the board could just tentatively file an appeal and then decide at a future meeting whether to continue it. This would also buy the board time to consider any complex issues. Are you beginning to get the idea ?

The board disagreed and found that the issue could be considered as an emergency motion, despite Larry’s ‘objections’. The issue was hardly that complex, it’s ‘teach the controversy’ had brought in the teaching of Intelligent Design through the backdoor. Given the ruling in Dover it was wise to avoid the ‘Dover trap’. Larry seems to suggest that the board should have waited for it to be sued and lose before taking these steps? Why not save the millions of dollars and apply them to good education.

“All of that adds up to a sense of urgency and a sense of now is the time to clean up our act,” said Robin C. Hovis, a stockbroker from Millersburg who is one of two board members pushing an emergency motion on Tuesday to delete the “critical analysis” language and the lesson plan. “There is an atmosphere among the board, at least a growing atmosphere, that this is a misguided policy and we better get rid of it.”

Link

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 3, column 128, byte 689 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

“This lesson is bad news, the ‘critically analyze’ wording is bad news,” said Martha W. Wise, the board member behind the emergency motion. “It is deeply unfair to the children of this state to mislead them about the nature of science.” Wise, a 28-year veteran of the board who led the fight to delete the anti-evolution language from the science standards and accompanying lesson plan, is a creationist who has taken heat from other creationists for her stance, according to the Chicago Tribune.

link

Indeed, critically analyze is merely an invitation for creationist arguments. There are better ways to deal with controversies about the mechanisms of evolutionary theory than misleading them about the nature of science. The lesson plan was just plain aweful. I cannot believe why anyone would support the lesson plan, especially those interested in teaching the controversy or critically analyze…

As for Dover — I think that it is wrong to conclude that the Dover defendants’ legal representation was bad just because it was free and the defendants lost. The Dover defendants screwed up so badly that there was no dream team that could have saved them.

The defendants could have made an attempt to show that ID serves a valid secular purpose, being scientifically relevant…

Of course they tried and with various key ID activists withdrawn, they faced an uphill battle. But you are right, the lack of a valid secular purpose makes ID likely to fail the establishment clause, given it’s creationist history and entanglements

PvM Wrote:

The board disagreed and found that the issue could be considered as an emergency motion, despite Larry’s ‘objections’.

I’m no expert in these matters … but even I am aware that “emergency” is so difficult to define, and so ill-defined in the relevant statutes, that declaring an emergency is ridiculously common. That allows avoiding all sorts of time limits, e.g applying new laws immediately.

Jon Fleming Wrote:

I’m no expert in these matters … but even I am aware that “emergency” is so difficult to define, and so ill-defined in the relevant statutes, that declaring an emergency is ridiculously common. That allows avoiding all sorts of time limits, e.g applying new laws immediately.

Ah, but in order to enact a new law or rule on an emergency basis (or otherwise amend or remove), the Code states that the Governor must give approval and that within 30 days the appropriate body must affirm it, otherwise it becomes null. Note: this does not apply to policies as these are at a lower level than a rule. I can search that rule again if someone wants the details.

As it is, I think a notification less than 24 hours prior to the meeting of an imminent intent to sue unless an activity enabled by a certain policy is stopped, plus the recent revealing of documentation that showed the policy’s history was similar to a recent court case, might justifiably be considered an emergency.

Given the demand of the ACLU published that very morning, combined with the damning content found in the FOIA documents released since the previous meeting, I think it could be considered an actual emergency. My beef is that no public comment was permitted before the decision was made.

Side note to the speculators - Jon Fleming has been posting here since mid 2004. No Whacko-Troll without further evidence. ;)

Comment #80944 Posted by PvM on February 19, 2006 08:45 PM

The board disagreed and found that the issue could be considered as an emergency motion, despite Larry’s ‘objections’.

The idea is to find a judge who disagrees with the board and rules that the board abused its discretion in treating the evolution lesson plan as an emergency issue not just once, but twice.

In January, the excuse was that there was a threat of a lawsuit because of the Dover decision. However, consider the following –

(1) The decision was released about 3 weeks before the board meeting, allowing plenty of time to put the lesson plan on the agenda.

(2) An announcement of an intention to vote on the plan in February probably would have forestalled any lawsuit.

(3) Even if a lawsuit had been filed before the February meeting, it would not have been the end of the world.

At the February meeting, the supposed excuse was that the pressure to eliminate the lesson plan had been building. But some of the events that generated that pressure occurred a long time before the meeting. Under the Brown Act of California, only 72 hours advance notice is required for agenda items. And even if the board did not get enough warning of reasons to put the lesson plan on the agenda, my above arguments #2 and #3 concerning the January meeting would apply.

Why are you siding with the Board on this issue ? Are you happy that the board does not give adequate advance notice of consideration of the lesson plan and votes before hearing public comments on the issue ?

The issue was hardly that complex, it’s ‘teach the controversy’ had brought in the teaching of Intelligent Design through the backdoor.

The Ohio lesson plan is not “ID.” ID has become a code term for all criticism of evolution theory. My arguments against co-evolution in Comment #79655 on your “False Fear” thread do not concern “design” (and incidentally, no one on PT has even attempted to refute my core arguments against co-evolution ).

Given the ruling in Dover it was wise to avoid the ‘Dover trap’.

This “Dover trap” is a figment of the imaginations of those who seek censorship of criticism of evolution theory in the public-school science classrooms.

Larry seems to suggest that the board should have waited for it to be sued and lose before taking these steps?

I suggested nothing of the kind. I was trying to think up a scenario where the board supposedly would have to make an emergency decision concerning the lesson plan. I supposed that the announcement of an adverse court decision is received without enough time to put the matter on the agenda and that the board has only 30 days (the normal time limit in federal courts) to decide whether to appeal. I showed that even here, it would not be necessary for the board to make an immediate decision – the board could just tentatively file an appeal and decide at a future meeting whether to continue it.

Why not save the millions of dollars and apply them to good education.

It is hard to imagine a trial on the issue that would be bigger than the Dover trial, and that trial is expected to cost the defendants only something over a million dollars. That is a lot of money for the Dover Area school district but is peanuts for a big state like Ohio.

Well that was a quick name change Andy H. or should I say B.F? Who is really “super activist” Lawrence Fafarman bitches and wheezes AGAIN Lawrence Fafarman you are nothing but a tiresome boring old fart go away and die.

But before you do have a look at this

http://afr.com/articles/2006/02/16/[…]4199920.html

here are some quotes NOTE THAT Lawrence Fafarman is a Holocausts revisionist!

When George Bush recently said that evolution and intelligent design should be taught side by side, so that students “can understand what the debate is about”, he probably didn’t know that he was subscribing to the wisdom of Gerald Graff, a professor of English at the University of Illinois, Chicago, and a founder of Teachers for a Democratic Culture, an organisation dedicated to “combating conservative misrepresentations” of what goes on in college classrooms. .

. . Intelligent designers are not the first denizens of the right to borrow arguments and strategies from the liberal and postmodern left. In the early 1990s, the Holocaust denier Bradley Smith was able to place an ad - actually an essay - in college student newspapers in part because he presented his ideas under the heading “The Holocaust Controversy: The Case for Open Debate”. Not the case for why there was no campaign to exterminate the Jews, or for why the Nazis were innocent of genocidal thoughts, or for why Holocaust-promoting Jews are just trying to drum up “financial support for Jewish causes” - though all these things were asserted in the body of the ad - but the case for open debate, and how could anyone; especially an academic, be against that? Ours is not a “radical point of view”, Smith asserts. We are just acting on premises that “were worked out some time ago during a little something called the Enlightenment”. In short, we are the true liberals, and it is the scholars who have become “Thought Police”. … Whether this has ever been true of the right’s targets, it is now demonstrably true of the right itself, whose members recite the mantras of “teach the controversy” or “keep the debate open” whenever they find it convenient. They do so not out of a commitment to scrupulous scholarship but in an effort to accomplish through misdirection and displacement what they cannot accomplish through evidence and argument

On behalf of those who want a comment system which enforces better behavior, let me just say thanks, Larry. You’re helping us get there.

If Larry Andy will indulge me, I’d like to shift the focus for just a moment to the subject of the original post. While I’m encouraged that ID is reeling, I’m not sure the death certificate has been signed yet.

From today’s Columbus Dispatch:

Curriculum guidelines on evolution sent to panel for review Monday, February 20, 2006 Catherine Candisky THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Meet the new committee, same as the old committee.

Last week, the State Board of Education scrapped curriculum guidelines that would have opened the schoolhouse door to the teaching of intelligent design. Now the guidelines will be reviewed by the same panel that singled out Darwin’s theory of evolution for additional scrutiny in the first place. …

Several state board members who voted to delete controversial provisions of the standard and lesson plan said they were concerned about singling out evolution for critical analysis and suggested all scientific theories should be subject to such scrutiny.

“Those of us who support critical analysis never meant to single out evolution,” Cochran said. “It’s something we overlooked.”

(emphasis mine; I just thought that, if anyone is interested, I believe Rev. Cochran has a bridge in the New York metropolitan area he’s looking to sell for a very reasonable price.)

Now, back to your regularly scheduled Larry Andy H.

Larry Wrote:

Why are you siding with the Board on this issue ? Are you happy that the board does not give adequate advance notice of consideration of the lesson plan and votes before hearing public comments on the issue ?

Lovely a ‘have you stopped beating your wife’ ‘argument’

Larry Wrote:

The Ohio lesson plan is not “ID.” ID has become a code term for all criticism of evolution theory.

The Ohio lesson plan clearly implements ID. Worse, it presents severely flawed arguments. The board had not choice once it heard from its scientific advisors to reject the plan.

Larry Wrote:

My arguments against co-evolution in Comment #79655 on your “False Fear” thread do not concern “design” (and incidentally, no one on PT has even attempted to refute my core arguments against co-evolution ).

Yawn… still ignoring the postings that have shown your comments about co-evolution to be without much merrit?

Larry Wrote:

This “Dover trap” is a figment of the imaginations of those who seek censorship of criticism of evolution theory in the public-school science classrooms.

On the contrary, the Dover trap has shown that the approach if teaching the controversy is nothing but a sham. It makes for nice rethoric but Ohio has shown what “teach the controversy” results, it opens the back door to flawed intelligent design arguments.

The board has a responsibility to not only rectify its errors when it is informed of the legal case in Dover as well as when it is informed that the lesson plan it approved, was fundamentally flawed. The Dover trap, is very real and costly. All because some insist on teaching poor arguments against something they believe conflicts with their religious faith.

Stanley Fish explained all this in his excellent essay

Whether this has ever been true ofthe right’s targets, it is now demonstrably true of the right itself, whose members recite the mantras of “teach the controversy” or “keep the debate open” whenever they find it convenient. They do so not out of a commitment to scrupulous scholarship but in an effort to accomplish through misdirection and displacement what they cannot accomplish through evidence and argument.

He also gives a good overview of the similarities and differences between ID and holocaust deniers

There is, however, an equivalence of strategy that makes linking the two inevitable: in both cases, issues that have been settled in the relevant academic departments - history and biology, respectively - are reopened by refraining them as abstract questions about the value of debate as a moral good. When John West of the Discovery Institute (the intelligent design think tank) declares that “All Americans who cherish free speech” should reject any effort to exclude intelligent design from the classroom and invokes “the free market place of ideas” to clinch his case, his words could be incorporated wholesale into Bradley Smith’s ad. Intelligent designers and Holocaust deniers, despite the great differences between them, play the same shell game; they both say: Look here, in the highest reaches of speculation about inquiry in general, and not there, in the places where the particular, nitty-gritty work of inquiry is actually being done.

“Teach the controversy” or “critically analyze” are clearly seen as sham approaches not just because of the strong religious motivations but also because they are about issues which have since long been settled in science. If ID were interested in teaching good science then it should start with cleaning up its own closet of skeletons.

Cochran Wrote:

Cochran replied: “If I heard your testimony correctly, those who agree with your point of view are honest and those who disagree are dishonest. Is that what you said?”

“Yes, as far as passing off (intelligent design) as science,” Morris said.

“So half the board is dishonest? How do you square your comments with the ratings from (Thomas B.) Fordham Foundation and Education Weekly which gave us an A- and a B?”

“You’ve never heard me argue for intelligent design, because I don’t want it in there,” said board member Michael Cochran. “But I don’t see it in there.”

He also criticized opponents’ assertions that controversies surrounding evolution are fictional, and took exception to one biologist’s characterization of evolution critics as “cartoons.”

“It’s clear, after today, the scientific community is not all of one mind on this,” he said.

Wise, a 27-year veteran of the board, got things rolling with her assertion that a lesson plan written for Ohio schools had been lifted directly from a seminal book on intelligent design. The lesson, Wise said, was a thinly veiled version of intelligent design. And, she added, those who supported the lesson knew it.

“You’re calling me a liar!” thundered board member Michael Cochran. “Where have I every been thinly veiled about anything? It shows how foolish and stupid that comment was.” Cochran, a supporter of the lesson plan, is a lawyer and a rector at Christ Church Anglican

Link

“There are credentialed scientists who support intelligent design,” Cochran said.

Link

Yesterday, Michael Cochran, a board member from Blacklick, noted that 12,000 of the 17,000 responses the Education Department has received on the science standards are from people who support teaching evolution, intelligent design, creationism and any other competing concept.

“That’s 3-to-1. How are we to react to that beside what we are doing – ignoring it?” Cochran said, looking to his colleagues for a response.

“I guess your silence is the answer.”

Link

Comment #80979 Posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on February 20, 2006 02:36 AM

As it is, I think a notification less than 24 hours prior to the meeting of an imminent intent to sue unless an activity enabled by a certain policy is stopped, plus the recent revealing of documentation that showed the policy’s history was similar to a recent court case, might justifiably be considered an emergency.

Given the demand of the ACLU published that very morning, combined with the damning content found in the FOIA documents released since the previous meeting, I think it could be considered an actual emergency. My beef is that no public comment was permitted before the decision was made.

The “ACLU demand” was just a letter to the Toledo public school system. This letter did not even directly mention the Ohio evolution lesson plan. And the letter was not a notification of an “imminent intent to sue” but just carried a veiled threat to sue. Also, no government body should allow itself to be stampeded into taking emergency action because of a lawsuit threat made so close to a meeting that there is not enough time to put the matter on the agenda. The ACLU letter is on – http://www.acluohio.org/issues/inte[…]idletter.pdf

Also, for your information – Under California Code Section 54956.5, from the Brown Act, which governs meetings of govenmental bodies, an “emergency situation” is defined as (1) a work stoppage, crippling activity, or other activity that severely impairs public health, safety, or both, or (2) a crippling disaster, mass destruction, terrorist act, or threatened terrorist activity. Says nothing about lawsuit threats.

Larry, you *DO* know that Ohio is not part of California, don’t’ you? Surely anyone with your vast knowledge of the law and its proper application must be aware that Ohio is no bound by California statutes.

So why should any of us care about your bloviating, you old fool?

hugs, Shirley Knott

Larry, you *DO* know that Ohio is not part of California, don’t’ you?

Larry doesn’t even know his own name.

Larry is seriously screwed in the head.

Side note to the speculators - Jon Fleming has been posting here since mid 2004. No Whacko-Troll without further evidence. ;)

no worries, Larry Fubar would never start off one of his rambling, incoherent missives with:

I’m no expert in these matters

Larry is a self-confirmed (he cites his alternative persona as proof) expert on all matters that he chooses to slaver about.

Comment #81021 Posted by PvM on February 20, 2006 10:42 AM

“Why are you siding with the Board on this issue ? Are you happy that the board does not give adequate advance notice of consideration of the lesson plan and votes before hearing public comments on the issue ?”

Lovely a ‘have you stopped beating your wife’ ‘argument’

It is actually a “has your wife stopped beating you” kind of argument.

The Ohio lesson plan clearly implements ID.

That statement shows that you don’t have any idea what ID is.

“My arguments against co-evolution in Comment #79655 on your “False Fear” thread do not concern “design” (and incidentally, no one on PT has even attempted to refute my core arguments against co-evolution ).”

Yawn… still ignoring the postings that have shown your comments about co-evolution to be without much merrit?

They don’t have “much merit” ? Does that mean that they have at least a little merit ? Anyway, those postings did not address my core arguments against co-evolution in Comment #79655 on your “False Fear” thread.

He also gives a good overview of the similarities and differences between ID and holocaust deniers

I am not a holocaust denier – I am a holocaust revisionist. Anyway, that is just an ad hominem attack.

I have been condemned so many times here in regard to my holocaust views that I feel I am entitled to say something in my defense on this issue, even though it is off-topic. Here are some of my reasons for doubting official holocaust history –

(1) Despite claims of “meticulous” Nazi records, the official figure for the number of Auschwitz deaths, accepted as 3-4 million for decades, has been revised sharply downward to 1-1.5 million.

(2) The Nazis had no reliable ways of distinguishing Jews from non-Jews. The Nazis just rounded up people en masse and could not do genealogical checks on individuals. A recent book, “IBM and the Holocaust,” makes the absurd claim that the Nazis identified all the Jews of Europe by using primitive IBM Hollerith card-reading and card-sorting machines to correlate data stored on billions of punched cards !

So you see, even when a case appears airtight, there may be holes in it.

“Teach the controversy” or “critically analyze” are clearly seen as sham approaches not just because of the strong religious motivations but also because they are about issues which have since long been settled in science.

The issues are never settled. For example, so far as I can find, the arguments I have raised against co-evolution have not been raised before.

For those who haven’t tracked “Andy H” the unethical poster back to his original Larry FaFalutin puppet, the above post should serve as an update on what a complete maroon he really is.

Bleh!

I still don’t get why PvM is letting larry blatantly violate the rules of this board in this particular thread.

gees, Pim, at least give him a warning or something.

what good are rules if you don’t enforce them?

I know his real name is Larry Fafarman, and i suspected long ago he would pull something like this crap, that’s why I asked him to verify his identity weeks ago.

He had no problem with that at the time.

now he seems to de-facto deny his own existence on a regular basis.

It’s gone far beyond humorous in my book.

so, If you aren’t going to even warn him for his abuse of the rules, can you at least explain the reasoning behind it?

of course, i said all that and then suddenly realized i posted it in the wrong thread!

ack.

whatever…

same question directed at Richard then.

And this thread has run its course as far as I can see. Comments closed. Thanks, folks!

RBH

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on February 14, 2006 6:33 PM.

Ohio news was the previous entry in this blog.

Dan Ely testifies in Ohio (and Kansas) 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 4.381

Site Meter