This good news comes from Idaho’s Science Teachers Association who have approved an official position against teaching intelligent design in Idaho’s public schools.
Ironically, Idaho’s Science Teachers Association has a website at the address “idscienceteachers.org” :-)
The Christian Post reports
In Idaho this past weekend, science teachers officially noted that they will not allow the instruction of intelligent design in their school systems.
The Idaho Science Teachers Association supported their position by saying that intelligent design, an opposing conjecture to evolution theory, is not approved by the scientific community, so it has no place being taught as a science.
“It basically would be unethical to teach creation science or intelligent design because it is not science, and it does not belong in a science classroom,” said Rick Alm, president of the ISTA’s board, in the Idaho Statesman.
It’s all well and good that the ISTA has stated a position against ID, but if you read the article by the Christian Post, it is very “even handed” towards ID, as if there really were a scientific theory of ID, rather than it being a scam.
There is still a lot of work to be done to let the religious, as well as the non-religious, understand the BS behind ID.
From that Christian Post article:
http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/archi[…]lubfaq.shtml
Note the appearance that IDEA is some official “center” at UCSD. This would shock the hell out of me so I checked the IDEA Club web site and found:
“We are a student chapter of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center, a non-profit group which promotes intelligent design theory by helping students to start IDEA Clubs, like this one, at their own schools”
Can’t help but be reminded of Mike Dunsford’s blog post 3/3/07 The limits of tolerance.
Apparently according to their definition of the term “Center,” I was president of the Chemistry Center at UC Davis for two years. Wow!
If you can’t ethically put it on your resume, it doesn’t exist.
No one dedicated to truth and self-criticism could make such a claim (how could they even know what their members are dedicated to?), but especially about creationists and IDEA clubs.
Ah, but will they also not allow the designer-free phony “critical analysis” that IDers are peddling instead of ID (as in direct arguments for design)?
Here’s the version of the story from Americans United…
Way To Go, Idaho!: Science Teachers Say No To ‘Intelligent Design’
In the Americans United… story, there’s a link to the NSTA (National Science Teachers Association) policy statement. This statement is well worth a read; it’s consise, strong, and covers a lot of ground. Note: I found no mention of the NSTA policy in the Christian Post story. Two excerpts:
Not everyone is happy…
Darwinists are busy keeping the science classroom pure:
Ed Iverson’s neat little stereotype is demolished by Paul Gross. And his parroted anti-“Darwinism” sound bites (“no beneficial mutations”, etc.) are demolished in the usual places.
Ed sounds like he got his biology instruction from his cousin Allen. Nice to see him appropriately shredded in the comments.
Well, now that somebody’s Comments #164617 through 164624 have demonstrated randomness, maybe add some selection effects? Or not?
http://mein-blog.net/?w=sergt college sex party
Update